New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Bali Ram Bansal & Ors.
2010 Latest Caselaw 2189 Del

 *                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+               Mac. Appeal No.257 of 2010 & C.M. Appl. Nos.7463-7464 of 2010

%                                                                              26.04.2010

         NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.                 ...... Appellant
                             Through: Mr. Kanwal Chaudhary, Advocate.

                                            Versus

         BALI RAM BANSAL & ORS.                                    ......Respondents

                                                          Date of decision: 26th April, 2010

         JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA

1.       Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2.       To be referred to the reporter or not?

3.       Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?

                                      JUDGMENT

SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA (ORAL)

1. By this appeal, the appellant/insurance company has primarily assailed grant of

Rs.25,000/- to each of the claimant as compensation by the Tribunal for loss of love and

affected due to death of the deceased. It is submitted by counsel for the appellant that the

amount of Rs.1,50,000/- granted in all to six claimants was exorbitant and contrary to the

facts and evidence on record.

2. No amount of money can compensate love and affection which the dependents of

a deceased, his brothers, sisters and other relatives, who were not even dependent get

deprived of on untimely accidental deaths. However, while granting compensation for

loss of life, the courts have been granting token amount under different heads like loss of

consortium, loss of estate and loss of love and affection apart from loss of dependency.

Such amounts are granted by the Tribunals at their own discretion considering several

aspects connected with the family and death of the person. No doubt each presiding

officer of the Tribunal and each judge of the High Court and/or the Supreme Court shall

have his own concepts and standards and would be considering amounts on such heads as

per their own concepts. While considering an appeal, substituting discretionary relief

granted by the Tribunal by another amount on its own estimations of loss of love and

affection would not be proper. The Tribunal is a court where evidence of the dependents

is recorded and has firsthand experience of the kind of love and affection the dependents

felt deprived of. Thus, the Tribunal is the best judge of the amount of compensation to be

awarded under such heads.

3. I do not find any ground to interfere in the award of compensation for deprivation

of love and affection. A plea has been raised by the counsel for the appellant that in Sarla

Varma & Ors. vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr.; (2009) 6 SCC 121, the Supreme

Court has not approved of grant of compensation for loss of love and affection. I

consider this is not true. The Supreme Court in its latest judgment in Baby Radhika

Gupta & Ors. vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.; 2010 ACJ 758 has upheld grant of

Rs.25,000/- as compensation for loss of love and affection.

4. I find no force in the appeal. The appeal is hereby dismissed.

SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA J.

APRIL 26, 2010 'AA'