Delhi High Court
Howrah Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Smt. Vijay Dutta & Ors. on 28 April, 2010
Author: Shiv Narayan Dhingra
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Reserve: 23rd April, 2010
Date of Order: 28th April, 2010
FAO No. 255/1994
% 28.4.2010
Howrah Insurance Co. Ltd. ... Petitioner
Through: Mr. P.K.Seth, Advocate
Versus
Smt. Vijay Dutta & Ors. ... Respondents
Through: None
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
By this appeal, the appellant has assailed judgment of Tribunal dated
7th July, 1994 whereby Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,40,000/- as compensation to
the claimants and this compensation was apportioned among the three LRs of the
deceased viz. his wife, his son and his mother.
2. Brief facts necessary for deciding this petition are that accident took
place on 9th September, 1971 resulting into death of Mr. K.D.Dutta, who left behind
one son, his parents and wife Smt. Vijaya Dutt. Smt. Vijaya Dutt had also received
injuries in the accident being a pillion rider. She filed a separate claim petition but
later she withdrew the claim petition perhaps because of the fact that she got
remarried in 1976. The claim petition filed by parents continued for more than 20
years and was disposed of by the Tribunal in July, 1994. Thus, the claim petition
only in respect of death of Mr. K.D.Dutta continued.
3. The appeal has been preferred on the ground that Tribunal wrongly
applied multiplier of 20 for the purpose of assessing dependency of the claimants on
the deceased. The widow of deceased got re-married during pendency of the case
and the Tribunal should have therefore, applied multiplier of 12. It is also submitted
that the Tribunal wrongly held wife of the deceased entitled for compensation only for
the period she remained unmarried. It is contended that Tribunal should have held
wife entitled to Rs.70,000/- as compensation instead of Rs.15,000/- and since she
had remarried the insurance company should have been held not liable to pay this
compensation. It is also submitted that the Tribunal wrongly awarded interest @
12% as the delay in prosecution was not due to the insurance company.
4. The deceased at the time of his death was aged 28 years. There was
history of longevity in the family. His father aged 70 years was alive and his grand-
father aged 90 years was also alive. The claim was filed under 1939 Act whereunder
the multiplier was to be considered by the Court taking into account the history of
longevity of the family and age of deceased, age of dependants. Considering the
age of the deceased and looking at the facts that grandfather at the age of 90 years
was alive and deceased left behind a minor son, I consider that Tribunal rightly
applied multiplier of 20.
5. There is no force in the plea of the appellant that the Tribunal should
have apportioned Rs.70,000/- for wife, who remarried. The Tribunal rightly
apportioned Rs.80,000/- for son, who was minor at the time of accident, since the
entire education and bringing up of son fell on the shoulders of his grandparents as
mother had remarried. The Tribunal apportioned Rs.45,000/- to mother of the
deceased and Rs.15,000/- to wife, who had remarried. I find no fault in the
apportionment. Moreover, the appellant had no right to assail the apportionment
when claimants had not assailed the apportionment. The Tribunal granted interest @
12% p.a. The interest is granted not merely on the ground of delay caused in
prosecution, the interest is liable to be awarded because the money, which should
have been paid by the insurance company soon after the accident, remained in use
of the insurance company. The lending interest rate in 1970s was around 21% to
24%. The award of interest by the Tribunal at 12% is not in excess. I find no force in
this appeal. The appeal is hereby dismissed.
April 28, 2010 SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J.
vn
