Delhi High Court
National Insurance Co.Ltd. vs Jagni Devi & Ors. on 3 February, 2011
Author: Reva Khetrapal
UNREPORTED
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ MAC. APP. 522/2009 and CM No.23347/2010
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. A.K. Soni, Advocate
versus
JAGNI DEVI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Ajay K. Sharma, Advocate
for the respondent No.1
% Date of Decision : February 03, 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?
J U D G M E N T (ORAL)
: REVA KHETRAPAL, J.
1. By way of this appeal, the appellant - Insurance Company
seeks to impugn the award dated 28th April, 2009.
2. With the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for final
hearing at the admission stage.
3. Although a number of grounds were raised by the appellant at
the time of the institution of the appeal, at the time of hearing Mr.
A.K. Soni, the learned counsel for the appellant confines his
submissions to two grounds. The first ground urged by Mr. Soni is
that though the Tribunal referred to the judgment of the Supreme
Court rendered in Smt. Sarla Verma & Ors. vs. Delhi Transport
Corporation & Anr. reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, it failed to follow
the ratio of the said judgment, which clearly lays down that the
suitable multiplier to be adopted in a case where the deceased is a
bachelor and the claimants are the parents would be governed by the
age of the parents/claimants. The learned Tribunal instead of
choosing the multiplier with reference to the age of the claimant-
mother who was sole surviving legal heir of the deceased has applied
the multiplier of 18, which is applicable to the age of the deceased.
4. The second ground sought to be urged by Mr. Soni, the learned
counsel for the appellant, is that the interest awarded by the learned
Tribunal on the award amount is on the higher side, being at the rate
of 9% per annum, while as per settled law 7.5% per annum ought to
have been awarded to the claimants.
5. It is evident from the award that the compensation payable to
the claimant was computed by the Tribunal in the following manner.
6. The income of the deceased was assessed by the Tribunal to be
in the sum of ` 2,650/- per month in view of the statement on oath
made by the respondent No.1-claimant that the deceased was
working as cook in a hotel wherefrom he was getting his salary of
` 2,650/- per month. From the said amount, 50% deduction towards
personal expenses of the deceased was made by the Tribunal in
accordance with the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case
of Sarla Verma (supra). This figure was then multiplied by 12 in
order to ascertain the annual loss of dependency of the claimants and
thereafter the multiplier of 18 applied to the same. Thus calculated,
the loss of dependency of the claimants was worked out to ` 2,650/-
reduced by half X 12 X 18 = ` 2,86,200/-.
7. Clearly, in my view, the Tribunal erred in adopting the
multiplier of 18 which was in consonance with the age of the
deceased and not with the age of the claimant (the respondent No.1
herein).
8. As regards the age of the claimant - mother, as per the affidavit
by way of evidence of PW-1 Smt. Jagni Devi, her age at the time of
the filing of the affidavit, i.e., on 28th May, 2008 is stated to be about
60 years, meaning thereby that she was 55 years of age on the date of
the accident, i.e., on 12th August, 2003. It is not in dispute that apart
from this Affidavit, there is no other documentary evidence available
on record to show the age of the claimant. Thus, assuming the age of
the claimant to be 55 years, the appropriate multiplier which ought to
have been applied by the trial court in accordance with the judgment
of the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma's case (supra) would be the
multiplier of 11 as tabulated for the age-group between 51 to 55 years
in paragraph 40 of the said judgment. Adopting the multiplier of 11
to augment the multiplicand, the total loss of dependency works out
to ` 2,650/- reduced by half X 12 X 11 = ` 1,74,900/- (rounded off to
` 1,75,000/-) . After adding the non -pecuniary damages awarded by
the Tribunal towards loss of estate and funeral expenses of the
deceased, the total compensation payable to the respondent No.1
works out to ` 1,85,000/-.
9. Adverting to the second contention raised by Mr. Soni on
behalf of the appellant - Insurance Company, viz., that the interest
awarded by the learned Tribunal on the award amount is on the higher
side, I find substance in this contention as well. The interest on the
award amount is accordingly scaled down from 9% per annum to
7.5% per annum from the date of the institution of the petition till the
date of realization.
10. Consequently, the impugned award stands modified to the
aforesaid extent. Fifty per cent of the award amount shall be released
to the claimants, as prayed, while the remaining fifty per cent shall be
kept in a fixed deposit with a nationalized bank for a period of five
years. Needless to say that the balance amount shall be released by
the UCO Bank to the appellant - Insurance Company. The statutory
deposit of ` 25,000/- be also refunded to the appellant, as prayed.
11. MAC. APP. 522/2009 and CM No.23347/2010 stand disposed
of accordingly.
REVA KHETRAPAL
(JUDGE)
February 03, 2011
km
