Delhi High Court
New India Assurance Company Ltd. vs Mohd. Azaz & Ors. on 19 December, 2011
Author: G.P. Mittal
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on:25th November, 2011
Pronounced on: 19th December, 2011
+ MAC APP. 1/2011
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE
COMPANY LTD. ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Neeraj Singh, Adv.
Versus
MOHD. AZAZ & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Anshuman Bal, Adv. for
Respondents No.1& 2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
JUDGMENT
G. P. MITTAL, J.
1. These are cross-objections to the MAC. APP. No.525/2009 filed
by the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. The main appeal bearing
MAC. APP. No.525/2009 was dismissed as withdrawn by an
order dated 16.11.2010. The cross-objections are now being
decided by this judgment.
2. A petition under Section 163(A) of the Motor Vehicles Act (the
Act) was preferred by the Respondents (hereinafter referred to
as Claimants) claiming a compensation of ` 10,00,000/- for the
death of their son Shehzad, who was aged 23 years at the time
of accident.
3. Since, the petition was under Section 163(A) of the Act the
Claimants were not required to prove the negligence on the part
of the driver of the offending vehicle. The Tribunal took the
deceased's annual income to be ` 40,000/-, deducted 50%
towards personal living expenses of the deceased, applied a
multiplier of '13' to reach the loss of dependency as `
2,60,000/-. The Tribunal further awarded conventional sum of `
10,000/- towards loss of estate, ` 10,000/- towards funeral
expenses and ` 20,000/- for loss of love and affection.
4. The Claimants have averred that the compensation awarded is
not just and fair.
5. In the second schedule to Section 163(A) of the Act, the
Claimants are required to prove the deceased's income though it
is not necessary to prove the negligence on the part of the driver
of the offending vehicle. PW-1 Smt. Razia Begum the
deceased's mother stated in her cross-examination that she did
not have any proof to show that her son was working as a Tailor
and earning ` 40,000/- per annum. She denied the suggestion
that her son was unemployed. There is no evidence as to the
deceased's qualification. Thus the Tribunal was not justified in
taking the deceased's income to be ` 40,000/- per annum. The
income which could have been taken in the absence of any
proof could be the minimum wages of an unskilled worker as
notified by the Govt. of Delhi on the date of the accident. The
same were ` 3,044.90 paise per month rounded off ` 3,045/- per
month or ` 36,540/- a year. Since the petition was filed under
Section 163(A) of the Act, the deduction towards the personal
expenses ought to have been 1/3rd as given in the second
schedule and not 50% and the multiplier according to the
deceased's age i.e. 23 years is '17'. The loss of dependency
thus works out as ` 4,14,120/-. After adding the conventional
sum towards loss of love and affection ` 20,000/-, towards loss
of estate ` 10,000/- and funeral expenses ` 10,000/- as awarded
by the Tribunal, the overall compensation is assessed as `
4,54,120/-. Thus, there is enhancement of ` 1,54,120/-, which
shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of
the petition till the date of payment. The Appellant in the main
appeal i.e. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. is directed to comply
with the order and make payment within six weeks.
6. Out of the enhanced compensation a sum of ` 54,120/- along
with proportionate interest shall be paid to the first Respondent.
Rest of the amount shall go to the second Respondent. 30% of
the amount shall be released forthwith; rest of the compensation
shall be held in Fixed Deposit for a period of three years.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
DECEMBER 19, 2011
hs
