* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 14th January, 2015
+ MAC.APP. 690/2013
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.
..... Appellant
Through: Ms. Shantha Devi Raman, Adv. with
Mr. Garud M.V., Adv. &
Mr. Sameer Dev Singh, Adv.
versus
HARIOM & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Santosh Pratap, Adv. for R-1 &
R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
1. The appeal is for reduction of compensation of Rs.20,78,816/-
awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) for the death of a 17 years old girl Ms. Saumya Singh, who succumbed to the injuries suffered in a motor vehicular accident which occurred on 22.05.2010.
2. It is urged by the learned counsel for the Appellant that the deceased had just passed her 11th standard and was a student of 12th class. The Claims Tribunal erred in taking the notional income of the deceased as Rs.15,000/- per month. The Claims Tribunal further added 50% MAC. APP. 690/2013 Page 1 of 5 towards future prospects, which is in violation of the three Judge Bench decision in Reshma Kumari & Ors. v. Madan Mohan & Anr. (2013) 9 SCC 65.
3. I have perused the record. Respondents no.1 and 2 have placed on record host of documents to show that the deceased was a brilliant student. Mark sheet issued by the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) shows that the deceased had secured 92%, 95% and 79% marks in English, Hindi and Mathematics respectively. She had passed 11th standard and was a student of Brilliant Tutorials pursuing for admission in IIT. She was granted scholarship of Rs.40,000/- by the Brilliant Tutorials vide letter Ex.PW-1/7 proved during inquiry before the Claims Tribunal. The deceased participated in Science Olympiad Foundation in Sixth National Science Olympiad and was awarded a merit certificate for her distinctive performance. Other documents have also been placed on record to show that the deceased Ms. Saumya Singh was a brilliant student. In view of this, I am of the view that notional income of Rs.15,000/.- taken by the Claims Tribunal was on the lower side. It ought to have been taken as Rs.20,000/- per month.
4. I am supported in this view by a report of the Supreme Court in Haji MAC. APP. 690/2013 Page 2 of 5 Zainullah Khan (Dead) by Lrs. v. Nagar Mahapalika, Allahabad, 1994 (5) SCC 667, wherein in case of death of a young boy aged 20 years, who was a student of B.Sc. (First year) (Biology) in the year 1972, the compensation of Rs.1,46,900/- was increased and rounded off to Rs.1,50,000/-. At the same time, addition towards future prospects was not justified.
5. The loss of dependency thus comes to Rs.18,00,000/- (Rs.20,000/- x 12 ÷ 2 x 15).
6. The Claims Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.25,000/- towards loss of love and affection. In view of the judgment in Rajesh & Ors. v. Rajbir Singh & Ors., (2013) 9 SCC 54 the compensation awarded towards loss of love and affection is increased to Rs.1,00,000/-.
7. Similarly, a compensation of Rs.13,816/- was awarded by the Claims Tribunal as against the medical bills of Rs.33,816/- as the deceased Saumya Singh was admitted in Fortis Hospital. In addition to the sum of Rs.33,816/-, I also award another sum of Rs.10,000/- towards conveyance charges, special diet and gratuitous services rendered by the family members.
8. The revised compensation is hence, tabulated as under:- MAC. APP. 690/2013 Page 3 of 5
Sl. Compensation under various Awarded by Awarded by heads the Claims this Court No. Tribunal
1. Loss of Dependency 20,25,000/- 18,00,000/-
2. Loss of Love and Affection 25,000/- 1,00,000/-
3. Loss to Estate 10,000/- 10,000/-
3. Funeral Expenses 25,000/- 25,000/-
4. Reimbursement of Bills 13,816/- 33,816/-
5. Conveyance Charges -- 10,000/-
6. Special Diet -- 10,000/-
7. Gratuitous services -- 10,000/-
Total Rs.20,98,816/- Rs.19,98,816/-
9. There is a clerical mistake in para 21 of the impugned award as while calculating the total award, it is recorded that 'Thus, the total compensation will be Rs.19,98,816-' instead of Rs.20,98,816/-.
10. The overall compensation now comes to Rs.19,98,816/-.
11. Learned counsel for Respondents no.1 and 2 has urged that a sum of Rs.74,364/- was paid towards the tuition fee in Brilliant Tutorials vide receipt Ex.PW-1/8 and because of death of Ms. Saumya Singh, the said money could not be utilised.
12. Strictly speaking, this sum is not permissible for reimbursement as the MAC. APP. 690/2013 Page 4 of 5 parents of the deceased might have spent a large sum of money on education of the deceased. In any case, I do not find the compensation of Rs.20,98,816/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal to be excessive and exorbitant. Overall compensation seems to be just and reasonable. Therefore, I am not inclined to interfere with the award of compensation.
13. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
14. The compensation awarded shall be released/held in fixed deposit in favour of Respondents no.1 and 2 in the proportion as directed by the Claims Tribunal.
15. The statutory amount of `25,000/- shall be refunded to the Appellant Insurance Company.
16. Pending applications also stand disposed of.
(G.P. MITTAL) JUDGE JANUARY 14, 2015 vk MAC. APP. 690/2013 Page 5 of 5