Delhi High Court
National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Smt.Satto Devi & Ors. on 17 August, 2011
Author: Indermeet Kaur
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Judgment: 17.8.2011
+ MAC APPEAL No.615/2010 & MAC APPEAL No.618/2010
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. ...........Appellant
Through: Mr.Pradeep Guar and Mr.Dev
Dutt, Advocate for the,
Advocate.
Versus
SMT.SATTO DEVI & ORS. ..........Respondents
Through: Mr.Ansuman Bal, Advocate for
respondents no.1 and 2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to
see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Yes
INDERMEET KAUR, J. (Oral)
1. These are two appeals which have been filed by the
Insurance Company. The Award is dated 01.5.2010; three persons
had died in an accident which had occurred on 26.2.2006 at about
1.30 PM; the appeal has been filed qua the amount awarded in
favour of the legal representative of the Pushpender Pal Singh and
Madhu; the victims along with Vipin Jain were travelling in a TATA
Indica car when the car fell into the river 'Vyas' pursuant to which
all the occupants of the car had died. The claimants were the
parents of the deceased Pushpender Pal Singh and the in-laws of
the deceased Madhu. Compensation in the sum of Rs.18,72,264/-
had been awarded in favour of the claimants qua the death of
Pushpender Pal Singh; compensation in the sum of Rs.6,58,000/-
had been awarded to the legal representatives of the deceased
Madhu. Interest had been awarded @ 8% per annum.
2. The Award has been challenged by the learned counsel for
the Insurance Company for the amount awarded to the legal
representatives of both the husband and wife namely Pushpender
Pal Singh and Madhu. Contention regarding the claim of the
husband is that the multiplier adopted by the Tribunal is wrong.
The age of the claimant or the age of the deceased whichever is
higher has to be taken into account. In this case record clearly
shows that the age of the claimant was 54 years and this was the
factor which had to be borne in mind while applying the multiplier
but the Tribunal has applied the multiplier of 18 by keeping in
view the age of the victim i.e. of Pushpender Pal Singh who was
aged 23 years. The same argument has also been advanced to
qua the claim awarded in favour of legal representative of
deceased Madhu; it is pointed out that the father in law of Madhu
was aged about 54 years; the multiplier of 11 should have been
adopted keeping in view the higher age of the claimant and not
the age of the victim.
3. This submission had not been countered by the learned
counsel for the respondents. There appears to be an error on this
count made by the Tribunal and it accordingly requires a
correction. The second argument of the learned counsel for the
appellant is that in the case of the husband (Pushpender Pal
Singh) deduction should have been 1/2 and not 1/3 and this is in
view of the ratio of the Apex Court in the judgment reported in
2009 (6) Scale 129 Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport
Corporation & Anr. It is pointed out that apart from the parents
of the victim he had no other dependant. His wife had also died in
the accident and the deceased had no other liability; he had no
issue. This submission is also not countered by the learned
counsel for the respondent.
4. There is no dispute to the other facts.
5. Keeping in view the aforenoted scenario the modified award
in the case of husband Pushpender Pal Singh will accordingly read
as under:
Rs.8619 (salary) +Rs.4309 (50% future prospects) =
Rs.12929 - Rs.6464 (50% deductions) x12x11=
Rs.8,53,248/-.
6. The amount awarded under the non-pecuniary heads calls
for no interference. Interest awarded @ 8% per annum also calls
for no interference. The total awarded amount in the case of
Pushpender Pal Singh would be Rs.8,83,248/-.
7. The modified award in the case of Madhu will accordingly
read as under:
Rs.3000x12=36000x11=3,96,000+the amount of Rs.10,000
awarded under the non-pecuniary head.
8. The total awarded amount will be Rs.4,06,000/-; it will carry
interest @ 8% per annum.
9. The aforenoted amounts shall be disbursed to the claimants
in the manner as set out in the Award dated 01.5.2010.
10. Learned counsel for the appellant has pointed out that the
Insurance Company has deposited the amount over and above the
amount which has now been modified. The excess amount is
ordered to be refunded back to the Insurance Company along with
the statutory amount.
11. Appeals are disposed of in the above terms.
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
AUGUST 17, 2011
nandan
