United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Tej Narayan Paswan And Ors.
2010 Latest Caselaw 2835 Del

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                      +   MAC.APP.No.543/2005

                                 Date of Decision: 31st May, 2010
%

      UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.       ..... Appellant
                     Through : Mr. K.L. Nandwani, Adv.

                      versus

      TEJ NARAYAN PASWAN AND ORS.         ..... Respondents
                    Through : Mr. S.D. Pushkar, Adv.
                              for R-1 and 2.
                              Mr. Gagan Gupta, Adv.
                              for R-3.

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.4,80,000/- has been

awarded to claimants/respondents No.1 and 2.

2. The accident dated 22nd October, 2000 resulted in the

death of Ashok Paswan. The deceased was survived by his

parents who filed the claim petition before the Claims

Tribunal.

3. The deceased was aged 19 years at the time of the

accident and was working as a cleaner earning Rs.2,500/- per

month. The learned Tribunal took the income of Rs.2,500/-

considering that minimum wages of unskilled worker were

Rs.2,524/- per month at that time, added 50% towards

inflation and rise in price index, deducted 1/3rd towards his

personal expenses and applied the multiplier of 15 to

compute the loss of dependency at Rs.4,50,000/-.

Rs.20,000/- has been awarded towards loss of love and

affection and Rs.10,000/- towards funeral expenses. The

total compensation awarded is Rs.4,80,000/-.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant has urged the

following grounds at the time of hearing of this appeal:-

(i) The liability of the appellant is limited to

Rs.2,81,000/- under the Workmen's Compensation

Act, 1923.

(ii) Without prejudice, the appropriate deduction

towards personal expenses should be 1/2 instead

of 1/3rd.

5. The learned counsel for claimants/respondents No. 1

and 2 in reply submits that the appropriate multiplier

according to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on

the case of Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport

Corporation, 2009 (6) Scale 129 is 18 whereas the Claims

Tribunal has applied the multiplier of 15. The learned

counsel further submits that the Claims Tribunal has not

awarded compensation for loss of estate. The learned

counsel further submits that the accident occurred on 22nd

October, 2000 and the claimants are without any

compensation except the interim award and, therefore, the

award does not call for any interference.

6. The learned counsel for respondent No.3 submits that

the plea of limited liability under the Workmen's

Compensation Act, 1923 was neither raised nor proved by

the appellant before the Claims Tribunal.

7. The Trial Court Record reveals that the appellant did

not raise the plea of limited liability under the Workmen's

Compensation Act, 1923 before the Claims Tribunal. In para

17 of the written statement, the appellant admitted that the

offending vehicle was fully insured. Para 17 of the written

statement is reproduced hereunder:-

"17. That the vehicle is fully insured with the United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vide Cover Note No.053330. However, it is specifically denied that the alleged vehicle is involved in the accident in any manner."

8. No evidence was led by the appellant before the Claims

Tribunal to prove the Insurance Policy or the terms and

conditions of the Insurance Policy.

9. In that view of the matter, the plea of limited liability is

not open to the appellant to be raised in appeal for the first

time. The deceased was aged 19 years at the time of the

accident and the appropriate multiplier according to the

judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla

Verma (supra) is 18 and the appropriate deduction towards

personal expenses is 1/2 whereas the Claims Tribunal has

applied the multiplier of 15 and had deducted 1/3rd towards

personal expenses. The Claims Tribunal has also not

awarded any compensation for loss of estate.

10. The claimants are present in the Court. Claimant No.1

is a daily wager earning about Rs.100/- per day whenever he

gets the work. Claimant No.2 is the housewife. The

claimants had only one child who died in the road accident.

The claimants are without compensation for the last more

than nine years. In view of the ex-parte stay order dated 11th

July, 2005 by this Court, the claimants have been deprived of

the lawful compensation payable to them. In the peculiar

facts and circumstances of this case and also considering

that the Claims Tribunal has applied lower multiplier, no

compensation has been awarded for loss of estate and that

the claimants have been deprived of the lawful

compensation for more than nine years, no interference is

warranted in the award.

11. The appeal is dismissed. The appellant deposited a

sum of Rs.2,06,000/- with this Court in terms of the order

dated 11th July, 2005. Vide order dated 8th May, 2009, the

Registrar General of this Court was directed to transfer the

aforesaid amount of Rs.2,06,000/- as well as the statutory

amount of Rs.25,000/- to the Claims Tribunal. The aforesaid

amount of Rs.2,31,000/- (Rs.2,06,000 + Rs.25,000) was

transferred to the Claims Tribunal on 4th July, 2009. After

adjusting the interim award amount along with interest

amounting to Rs.64,650/- and the aforesaid amount of

Rs.2,31,000/-, the appellant's liability in respect of the award

amount of interest thereon is Rs.4,38,386/- which has been

deposited by the appellant by means of six cheques with the

Claims Tribunal (three cheques in the name of Tej Narayan

Paswan for Rs.1,70,158, Rs.7,851/- and Rs.41,184/- totaling

to Rs.2,19,193/- and three cheques in the name of Meera

Devi for Rs.1,70,158/-, Rs.7,851/- and Rs.41,184/- totaling to

Rs.2,19,193/-). All the aforesaid six cheques have been

deposited by the Claims Tribunal with State Bank of India

through Mr. H.S. Rawat, Relationship Manager, Tis Hazari

Branch, Tis Hazari (Mb: 09717044322).

12. The amount of Rs.2,31,000/- sent by this Court to the

Claims Tribunal has been kept in two fixed deposit receipts

as per details given hereunder:-

(i) Fixed deposit receipt No.470704 dated 10 th

December, 2009 for Rs.1,08,500/- in the name of

Tej Narayan Paswan.

(ii) Fixed deposit receipt No.470703 dated 10 th

December, 2009 for Rs.1,22,500/- in the name of

Meera Devi.

13. As such, a sum of Rs.6,69,386/- is with State Bank of

India, Tis Hazari Branch, Delhi as per break-up given

hereunder:-

(i) Fixed deposit receipt dated 10th December, 2009

for Rs.1,08,500/- plus Rs.2,19,193/- in the name of

Tej Narayan Paswan.

(ii) Fixed deposit receipt dated 10th December, 2009

for Rs.1,22,500/- plus Rs.2,19,193/- in the name of

Meera Devi.

14. The State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Branch is directed to

discharge both the FDRs No.470703 and 470704 and issue

fresh FDRs for Rs.6,00,000/- out of the FDR amount and

Rs.4,38,386/- deposited by the Claims Tribunal in the

following manner:-

(i) Fixed deposit for Rs.50,000/- in the joint names of

respondents No.1 and 2 for a period of six

months.

(ii) Fixed deposit for Rs.50,000/- in the joint names of

respondents No.1 and 2 for a period of one year.

(iii) Fixed deposit for Rs.50,000/- in the joint names of

respondents No.1 and 2 for a period of one and a

half years.

(iv) Fixed deposit for Rs.50,000/- in the joint names of

respondents No.1 and 2 for a period of two years.

(v) Fixed deposit for Rs.50,000/- in the joint names of

respondents No.1 and 2 for a period of two and a

half years.

(vi) Fixed deposit for Rs.50,000/- in the joint names of

respondents No.1 and 2 for a period of three

years.

(vii) Fixed deposit for Rs.50,000/- in the joint names of

respondents No.1 and 2 for a period of three and

a half years.

(viii) Fixed deposit for Rs.50,000/- in the joint names of

respondents No.1 and 2 for a period of four years.

(ix) Fixed deposit for Rs.50,000/- in the joint names of

respondents No.1 and 2 for a period of four and a

half years.

(x) Fixed deposit for Rs.50,000/- in the joint names of

respondents No.1 and 2 for a period of five years.

(xi) Fixed deposit for Rs.50,000/- in the joint names of

respondents No.1 and 2 for a period of five and a

half years.

(xii) Fixed deposit for Rs.50,000/- in the joint names of

respondents No.1 and 2 for a period of six years.

15. The remaining amount be released to respondents No.1

and 2 in equal shares by transferring the same to their

respective Saving Bank Account.

16. The interest on the aforesaid fixed deposits shall be

paid monthly by automatic credit of interest in the Savings

Account of respondents No.1 and 2.

17. Withdrawal from the aforesaid account shall be

permitted to respondents No.1 and 2 after due verification

and the Bank shall issue photo Identity Card to respondents

No.1 and 2 to facilitate identity.

18. No cheque book be issued to respondents No.1 and 2

without the permission of this Court.

19. The Bank shall issue Fixed Deposit Pass Book instead of

the FDRs to respondents No.1 and 2 and the maturity

amount of the FDRs be automatically credited to the Saving

Bank Account of the beneficiary at the end of the FDR.

20. No loan, advance or withdrawal shall be allowed on the

said fixed deposit receipts without the permission of this

Court.

21. Half yearly statement of account be filed by the Bank in

this Court.

22. On the request of respondents No.1 and 2, the Bank

shall transfer the Savings Account to any other branch

according to the convenience of respondents No.1 and 2.

23. Respondents No.1 and 2 shall furnish all the relevant

documents for opening of the Saving Bank Account and Fixed

Deposit Account to Mr. H.S. Rawat, Relationship Manager, Tis

Hazari Branch, Tis Hazari (Mb: 09717044322).

24. Copy of the order be given dasti to counsel for both the

parties under the signatures of the Court Master.

25. Copy of this order be also sent to Mr. H.S. Rawat,

Relationship Manager, Tis Hazari Branch, Tis Hazari (Mb:

09717044322) under the signature of Court Master.

J.R. MIDHA, J MAY 31, 2010