Reliance General Insurance Co. ... vs Indra Khanna & Ors.
2011 Latest Caselaw 1942 Del

                                     UNREPORTED
*   IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                     MAC.APP. 292/2011


RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD ..... Appellant
             Through: Mr. Sameer Nandwani, Advocate

             versus


INDRA KHANNA & ORS                                  ..... Respondents
            Through:            Mr. Navneet Goyal, Advocate for the
                                respondents No.1 to 6


%                          Date of Decision :   April 04, 2011

CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REVA KHETRAPAL

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?

                           ORDER

: REVA KHETRAPAL, J.

CM No.6691/2011

Exemption granted subject to all just exceptions.

The application stands disposed of.

MAC.APP. 292/2011 and CM Nos.6690/2011 (stay)

1. By way of this appeal, the appellant has challenged the

impugned judgment and award dated 04.02.2011 passed by the

learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Delhi in case No.916/09,

whereby the appellant was held liable to pay to the respondent Nos.1

to 6 compensation of ` 4,24,624/- alongwith interest, if any, at the

rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the

date of its realisation.

2. Issue notice to the respondents No.1 to 6 to show cause as to

why the appeal be not admitted. Mr. Navneet Goyal, Advocate

accepts notice on behalf of the respondents No.1 to 6.

3. With the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for final

hearing.

4. The facts leading to the present appeal, in a nutshell, are as

follows:-

One Shri Om Lal Khanna (hereinafter referred to as "the

deceased"), aged around 70 years, died in a motor vehicular accident

on 29.10.2009, while he was crossing the road on foot. The deceased

was survived by his widow, five children (all of whom were major on

the date of the accident), who filed the claim petition before the

learned Tribunal claiming a sum of ` 8,00,000/-. The Ld. Tribunal

vide its award dated 04.02.2011, awarded a total compensation of `

4,24,624/- in favour of the claimants and against the Respondents.

Aggrieved by the said award the Appellant-insurance company has

filed the present appeal.

5 It is apparent from the record that the deceased was stated to be

earning ` 10,000/- per month from business, however no proof

regarding the same was filed before the learned Tribunal.

Accordingly, the learned Tribunal proceeded to calculate the amount

of compensation on the basis of minimum wages for unskilled

labourer which were in the sum of ` 3,953/- at the time of the

accident. The learned Tribunal deducted therefrom 1/3rd of the

amount towards personal expenses of the deceased. Thus, the amount

considered for the purpose of calculating loss of dependency came

out to be ` 2,635.40 per month or ` 31624.80 per annum. Thereafter,

the learned Tribunal capitalized the aforesaid amount of annual loss

of dependency with number of years' purchase taking the multiplier

to be 9 and calculated the total loss of dependency to be in the sum of

` 2,84,623.30, rounded off to ` 2,84,624. In addition to this, the Ld.

Tribunal also awarded a sum of ` 25,000/- towards funeral charges, `

1,00,000/- towards loss of love and affection, ` 10,000/- towards loss

of consortium and ` 5,000/- towards loss of estate. The total

compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal thus worked out to be

` 4,24,624/-.

6. The only ground pressed by Mr. Sameer Nandwani, the learned

Counsel for the appellant, is that the learned Tribunal erred in

applying the multiplier of 9 in place of multiplier of 5 as the deceased

was above the age of 70 years. The said contention was not disputed

by Mr. Navneet Goyal, the learned counsel the for respondents No.1

to 6.

7. I find force in the aforesaid contention of Mr. Nandwani. The

deceased was admittedly aged 70 years at the time of the accident and

accordingly, the multiplier applicable in terms of the Second

Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 as well as in terms of the

judgment of Sarla Verma (Smt) and Others versus Delhi Transport

Corporation and Another (2009) 6 SCC 121 is the multiplier of 5. It

is pertinent to note here that the learned Tribunal has itself noted in

para 12 of the impugned award that the relevant multiplier is the

multiplier of 5, in the following terms:

"12. In the petition, the age of the deceased is stated to be as 70 years for which the relevant multiplier is 5 in terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Sarla Verma vs. DTC decided on 15.04.2009 in C.A. No. 3483/08."

8. Accordingly, the award is modified to the extent that to the

multiplicand constituting the annual loss of dependency, i.e., `

31,624.80, the multiplier of 5 is being applied. Thus calculated, the

figure of the total loss of dependency of the respondents No.1 to 6

works out to ` 1,58,124/- and after adding the non-pecuniary damages

of ` 1,40,000/- as awarded by the learned Tribunal, the claimants are

held entitled to the total compensation of ` 2,98,124/- on account of

the death of the deceased in the said accident with interest at the rate

of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date

of its realisation.

9. MAC.APP. 292/2011 and CM No.6690/2011 stand disposed of

accordingly.

REVA KHETRAPAL (JUDGE) April 04, 2011 km