Oriental Insurance Company Ltd vs Neelam Jain & Ors
2009 Latest Caselaw 3908 Del

24
*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                       +       MAC.APP.No.668/2006

%                                Date of decision: 23rd September, 2009


      ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD ..... Appellant
                    Through : Ms. Manjusha Wadhwa, Adv.

                      versus

      NEELAM JAIN & ORS             ..... Respondents
                     Through : Mr. Arun Srivastava, Adv. for
                               R-1 to 4.
                               Mr. Ashwini Bhardwaj, Adv.
                               for R-5.

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.22,25,000/- has been

awarded to claimants/respondents No.1 to 4.

2. The accident dated 25th September, 2004 resulted in the

death of Sidh Raj Jain. The deceased was survived by his widow

and three minor children who filed the claim petition before the

learned Tribunal.

3. The deceased was working as Senior Establishment Officer

with M/s Hyderabad Industries Ltd. earning Rs.12,500/- per

month. The learned Tribunal took the future prospects into

consideration by taking the average of Rs.12,500/- and its double.

1/3rd was deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased

and the multiplier of 15 was applied to compute the loss of

dependency at Rs.22,50,000/-. Rs.5,000/- has been awarded

towards funeral expenses and Rs.25,000/- has been awarded

towards loss of consortium. The total compensation awarded is

Rs.22,25,000/-.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant has urged two

grounds at the time of hearing of this appeal. The first ground of

challenge is that the driver of the offending vehicle was not

holding a valid driving licence. The second ground of challenge is

that the award amount is exorbitant and be reduced.

5. With respect to the driving licence, respondent No.5 has

placed on record the driving licence of the driver along with his

reply. Vide order dated 29th January, 2009, the appellant was

directed to verify the said driving licence. The appellant has

verified the driving licence produced by respondent No.5 to be

genuine. However, the appellant submits that the driver of the

offending vehicle produced a different driving licence before the

police which was found to be fake and the driver could not have

held two driving licences. The learned counsel for respondent

No.5 submits that the driver of the offending vehicle has expired

on 21st March, 2006 and the criminal case against him has also

abated. The learned counsel for respondent No.5 further submits

that the driver was employed by his father after verifying the

driving licence now produced before this Court and his father has

also since expired. The learned counsel for respondent No.5

further submits that respondent No.5 was not served before the

learned Tribunal and, therefore, respondent No.5 did not have the

opportunity to produce this driving licence before the learned

Tribunal. The learned counsel for respondent No.5 further

submits in view of the death of the driver of the offending vehicle

as well as his father who had employed the driver after verifying

the driving licence, respondent No.5 is in no position to explain as

to how the driver of the offending vehicle was holding two driving

licences.

6. Considering that the appellant has verified the driving

licence of the driver produced by respondent No.5 to be genuine,

it is held that the driver of the offending vehicle was holding a

valid driving licence at the time of the accident. The issue of

validity of two driving licences held by the driver at the time of

the accident cannot be decided in this case in view of the death

of the driver of the offending vehicle as well as the father of

respondent No.5 and is, therefore, left open to be decided in an

appropriate case. However, this decision shall not be treated as

precedent on the issue of driver holding two driving licences at

the time of the accident.

7. With respect to the quantum of compensation awarded by

the learned Tribunal, the learned counsel for the appellant

submits that the deceased was aged 45 years and the

appropriate multiplier according to the recent judgment of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi

Transport Corporation, 2009 (6) Scale 129 is 13. The

learned counsel further submits that the learned Tribunal has

added 50% of the income towards future prospects whereas it

should be 30% according to the judgment of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra). Following

the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the

multiplier applied by the learned Tribunal is reduced from 15 to

13 and the future prospects of the deceased are taken to be 30%

instead of 50%. The learned Tribunal has deducted 1/3rd towards

personal expenses of the deceased whereas the same should

have been deducted @ 1/4th considering that the deceased has

left behind four legal representatives.

8. Taking the income of the deceased to be Rs.12,500/- per

month, adding 30% towards future prospects, deducting 1/4th

towards personal expenses of the deceased and applying the

multiplier of 13, the loss of dependency is computed to be

Rs.19,01,250/- [(Rs.12,500 + 30% of Rs.12,500) x 3/4 x 12 x 13)].

9. The learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.25,000/- towards loss

of consortium and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses which are

not disturbed. Rs.10,000/- is awarded towards loss of love and

affection and Rs.10,000/- has awarded towards loss of estate.

The claimants are entitled to total compensation of

Rs.19,51,250/- (Rs.19,01,250 + Rs.25,000 + Rs.5,000 +

Rs.10,000 + Rs.10,000).

10. The appeal is partly allowed and the award amount is

reduced from Rs.22,25,000/- to Rs.19,51,250/- along with interest

@7.5% from the date of filing of the petition till realization.

11. The appellant has deposited Rs.10,00,000/- with the learned

Tribunal in terms of the order dated 4th August, 2006 which has

been released to the claimants. The appellant is directed to

deposit remaining award amount along with interest with the

learned Tribunal within 30 days.

12. Upon such deposit being made, the learned Tribunal is

directed to disburse the award amount to the claimants in the

same manner and proportion as in the original award.

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

both the parties under signature of Court Master.

J.R. MIDHA, J SEPTEMBER 23, 2009 aj