Icici Lombard General Insurance ... vs Shakuntala Devi & Ors
2009 Latest Caselaw 1294 Del

25
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                    +    MAC.APP. 496/2007

                               Date of Decision: 9th April, 2009
%

      ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL
      INSURANCE CO. LTD                  ..... Appellant
                    Through :     Mr. Pankaj Seth, Adv.
                versus

      SHAKUNTALA DEVI & ORS       ..... Respondents
                  Through : None.

CORAM :-
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA

1.      Whether Reporters of Local papers may              Yes
        be allowed to see the Judgment?

2.      To be referred to the Reporter or not?             Yes

3.      Whether the judgment should be                     Yes
        reported in the Digest?

                        JUDGMENT (Oral)

1. The appellant has challenged the award of the learned

Tribunal whereby compensation of Rs.8,39,200/- has been

awarded to claimants/respondents No.1 to 4.

2. The accident dated 21st February, 2006 resulted in the

death of Dilbar Singh. The deceased was aged 30 years at

the time of the accident and was survived by his widow aged

26 years, two daughters aged 6 years and 6 months and

father aged 76 years who filed the claim petition before the

learned Tribunal. The deceased was working as a driver with

M/s Bhushan Steel drawing a salary of Rs.8,000/- per month.

However, since documentary evidence of income was not

placed on record, the learned Tribunal considered the

minimum wages of Rs.3,695/- (rounded off as Rs.3,700/-) of a

skilled worker and by taking the future prospects, the income

of the deceased was taken at Rs.5,500/- per month. 1/3rd

was deducted by the learned Tribunal towards expenses of

the deceased and multiplier of 18 was applied to compute

the loss of dependency at Rs.7,99,200/-. Rs.10,000/- was

awarded towards funeral expenses, Rs.15,000/- towards loss

of love and affection. The total compensation awarded is

Rs.8,39,200/-.

3. The appellant has challenged the impugned award on

quantum of compensation awarded. The ground for

challenge is that future prospects should not have been

taken into consideration and the lower multiplier should have

been applied by the learned Tribunal.

4. The appellant had not taken the permission under

Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act before the learned

Tribunal and, therefore, this appeal is not maintainable in

respect of the challenge to the quantum of compensation.

Reference in this regard may be made to the judgments of

the Apex Court in the cases of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs.

Nicolletta Rohtagi, (2002) 7 SCC 456 and Shankarayya vs.

United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (1998) 3 SCC 140 where the

Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly held that in the absence

of defence as envisaged under Section 170 of the Motor

Vehicles Act being taken over by the insurance company, the

appeal filed by the insurance company cannot be

maintained.

5. Notwithstanding that there is no permission under

Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, I have examined the

merits of the case and do not find any substance. There is

no infirmity in the computation of the future prospects by the

learned Tribunal following the judgment of the Apex Court in

Susamma Thomas's case and the application of multiplier

according to the Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act.

6. For all these reasons, the appeal is dismissed.

7. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the

entire award amount has been deposited by the appellant

with the learned Tribunal which is admitted by claimants/

respondents No.1 to 4 in para 3 of CM No.4329/2008.

8. The Registry is directed to refund the statutory amount

of Rs.25,000/- to the appellant within three weeks.

9. Copy of this order be given 'Dasti' to learned counsel

for the appellant under signatures of Court Master. Copy of

this order be also sent to the Claimants/Respondents No.1 to

4.

CM No.11122/2007 Dismissed.

J.R. MIDHA, J APRIL 09, 2009 aj