Delhi High Court
National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Kanwaljeet Kaur & Ors on 16 July, 2010
Author: J.R. Midha
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ MAC.APP.No.190/2005
Date of Decision : 16th July, 2010
%
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. ..... Appellant
Through : Ms. Sonia Sharma and
Mr. Aslam Mirza, Advs.
versus
KANWALJEET KAUR & ORS .... Respondents
Through : Mr. B.K. Bharti, Adv. for
R-1 to R-3.
CORAM :-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA
1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may
be allowed to see the Judgment? YES
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.14,00,961/- has been
awarded to claimants.
2. The accident dated 20th April, 2000 resulted in death of
Harminder Singh. The deceased was survived by his widow,
two sons and parents who filed the claim petition before the
Claims Tribunal.
3. The deceased was aged 33 years at the time of the
accident and was self employed carrying on the business of
cable operator earning Rs.10,000/- per month. The Claims
Tribunal took the income of the deceased as Rs.66,280/-
according to the Income Tax return, Ex.PW-2/1 for the
assessment year 1999-2000, added 50% towards the future
prospects, deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses and
applied the multiplier of 17 to compute the loss of
dependency at Rs.11,26,760/-. Rs.2,39,201/- has been
awarded towards cost of medical treatment, Rs.10,000/-
towards funeral expenses and Rs.25,000/- towards loss of
consortium. Total compensation awarded is Rs.14,00,961/.
4. The only ground urged by the appellant at the time of
hearing is that the Claims Tribunal erred in not allowing the
appellant's application under Section 170 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 to contest the claim petition on merits.
The learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant
filed an application under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles
Act on 6th October, 2003 which was dismissed by the Claims
Tribunal on 15th December, 2003.
5. The learned counsel for the claimants submit that the
driver and the owner of the offending vehicle contested the
claim petition before the Claims Tribunal and, therefore, the
Claims Tribunal rightly dismissed the appellant's application
under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicle Act. The learned
counsel for the appellant submits that the driver and owner
did not properly contest the claim petition and they appear
to have colluded with the claimants.
6. The appellant did not challenge the order dated 15th
December, 2003 passed by the learned Claims Tribunal
whereby the appellant's application under Section 170 of the
Motor Vehicles Act was dismissed. It is well settled that in
the absence of permission under Section 170 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, the Insurance company cannot challenge the
impugned award before this Court on merits. Admittedly,
there is no challenge to the valid insurance of the offending
vehicle by the appellant in the present case.
7. The Claims Tribunal has dismissed the appellant's
application under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicle Act by a
detailed order dated 15th December, 2003 in which the
Claims Tribunal observed that there was no collusion
between the owner, driver and claimants and, therefore, no
case for grant of permission under Section 170 of the Motor
Vehicles Act was made out. The appellant has not challenged
the order dated 15th December, 2003. In that view of the
matter, the appeal is not maintainable.
8. The deceased was travelling in Maruti Car No.DL-2CC-
1037 which was hit by truck bearing No.PB-03D-7068 driven
rashly and negligently by its driver. The accident was proved
by FIR-Ex.P-26, site plan-Ex.P-27, Mechanical Inspection
Report of the offending truck-Ex.P-28 and P-29 and
Postmortem report-Ex.P-30 and the Claims Tribunal held that
the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving
of the driver. There is no infirmity in the finding of the Claims
Tribunal in this regard.
9. The learned counsel for the appellant further submits
that the amount awarded to the claimants is on a higher side
and amount should be reduced. In this regard, it is noticed
that the deceased was aged 33 years at the time of the
accident and was survived by five legal representatives
namely his widow, two minor children and parents, who filed
the claim petition before the Claims Tribunal. The
appropriate deduction towards personal expenses of the
deceased as per judgment of Apex Court in the case of Sarla
Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2009 (6) Scale
129 is 1/4th whereas the Claims Tribunal has deducted 1/3rd
towards the personal expenses of the deceased. The Claims
Tribunal has also not awarded any compensation towards
loss of love and affection and loss of estate to which the
claimants are entitled according to the judgment of Sarla
Verma (Supra). In that view of the matter, the amount
awarded by the Claims Tribunal is on a lower side. However,
since there are no cross-objections filed by the claimants, the
enhancement is not warranted.
10. The appellant has deposited the entire award amount
the Claims Tribunal out of which three FDRs as per detail
given herein are lying with the Claims Tribunal:-
Kanwaljeet Kaur : Rs.13,18,789/-
Ramandeep : Rs.2,19,798/-
Simrandeep : Rs.2,19,798/-
11. The Claims Tribunal is directed to release the FDRs of
Ramandeep and Simrandeep to them through their mother
and natural guardian, Kanwaljeet Kaur with an endorsement
that the said FDRs shall not be encashed till Ramandeep and
Simrandeep attain majority. With respect to FDR of
Rs.13,18,789/-, the Claims Tribunal is directed handover the
said FDR to UCO Bank with direction to discharge the said
FDR and release a sum of Rs.1,18,789/- to Kanwaljeet Kaur
and the remaining amount of Rs.12 lakhs be kept in fixed
deposits in the following manner:-
(i) Fixed deposit for Rs.1,00,000/- for a period of one
year.
(ii) Fixed deposit for Rs.1,00,000/- for a period of two
years.
(iii) Fixed deposit for Rs.1,00,000/- for a period of
three years.
(iv) Fixed deposit for Rs.1,00,000/- for a period of four
years.
(v) Fixed deposit for Rs.1,00,000/- for a period of five
years.
(vi) Fixed deposit for Rs.1,00,000/- for a period of six
years.
(vii) Fixed deposit for Rs.1,00,000/- for a period of
seven years.
(viii) Fixed deposit for Rs.1,00,000/- for a period of
eight years.
(ix) Fixed deposit for Rs.2,00,000/- for a period of nine
years.
(x) Fixed deposit for Rs.2,00,000/- for a period of ten
years.
12. The interest on all the aforesaid fixed deposits shall be
paid monthly by automatic credit of interest in the Savings
Account of respondent No.1.
13. No cheque book be issued to respondent No.1 without
the permission of this Court.
14. The original Fixed Deposit Receipts shall be retained by
the Bank in the safe custody. However, the original Pass
Book shall be given to respondent No.1 along with the
photocopy of the FDRs.
15. The original Fixed Deposit Receipts shall be handed
over to respondent No.1 at the expiry of the fixed deposit.
16. No loan, advance or withdrawal shall be allowed on the
said fixed deposit receipts without the permission of this
Court.
17. Half yearly statement of account be filed by the Bank in
this Court.
18. On the request of respondent No.1, the Bank shall
transfer the Savings Account to any other branch of UCO
Bank according to the convenience of respondents No.1.
19. Respondents No.1 shall furnish all the relevant
documents for opening of the Saving Bank Account and Fixed
Deposit Account to Mr. M.M. Tandon, Member-Retail Team,
UCO Bank Zonal, Parliament Street, New Delhi.
20. Copy of the order be given dasti to counsel for both the
parties under the signatures of the Court Master.
21. Copy of this order be also sent to Mr. M.M. Tandon,
Member-Retail Team, UCO Bank Zonal, Parliament Street,
New Delhi (Mobile No. 09310356400) through the UCO Bank,
High Court Branch under the signature of Court Master.
J. R. MIDHA, J
JULY 16, 2010
