Delhi High Court
Jaleena Khatoon & Ors. vs Icici Loambard General Insurance ... on 5 September, 2011
Author: Indermeet Kaur
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Judgment: 05.9.2011
+ MAC APPEAL No.111/2010
JALEENA KHATOON & ORS. ...........Appellant
Through: Mr.Kundan Kumar Lal,
Advocate.
Versus
ICICI LOAMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.&ORS.
..........Respondents
Through: Ms,Suman Bagga, Advocate for
R-1.
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)
CM No.3482/2010 (for delay)
In view of the averments made in the application the delay
of 94 days in filing appeal is condoned. Application is disposed of.
MAC APPEAL No.111/2010
1. This appeal is directed against the Award dated 19.8.2009
vide which a total compensation in the sum of `3,01,000/- had
been awarded in favour of the claimants. This petition had been
filed under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act; this was
pursuant to an application filed by the petitioner who had earlier
filed this petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act; on
his application it has been converted into a petition under Section
163A of the said Act. The structured formula had been followed
by the learned Tribunal while awarding the aforenoted
compensation. However, since the victim was a bachelor the
deduction was made at 50% which in terms of the Second
Schedule of Section 163 A is not the correct deduction.
Deductions should have been 1/3rd; to that extent the award
requires modification.
2. On other counts the Tribunal had noted that there was no
documentary evidence with the claimants to show income of the
deceased; there was no document to substantiate her submission
that he was a diploma holder; in the absence of this documentary
evidence minimum wages of `3400/- per month were calculated as
the income of the victim upon which 50% deduction was made on
the ground of personal expenses, however, the structured formula
of the Second Schedule of Section 163 A postulates deduction of
1/3rd only. The calculation would accordingly be:
`3400-`1134(1/3rd of `3400)= `2266
3. Applying the multiplier of 12 to the income of the victim
(after deduction of 1/3rd) the calculated figure works out to be
`27192/- which is the annual income of the victim to which the
correct multiplier of 13 would apply keeping in view the age of the
parents of the victim. Therefore under the head of "loss of
dependency" the substituted figure would be (`27192 x 13=)
`3,53,496/- instead of `2,66,000/-. A sum of `25,000/- has been
awarded under the head of "loss of love and affection"; `5000/-
has been awarded on account of "funeral expenses"; `5,000/- has
been awarded for the "loss of estate". The total awarded amount
would thus read as `3,88,496/- upon which the Insurance
Company is liable to pay interest @ 7.5% per annum.
4. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that
future prospects have not been considered to which he is entitled
is incorrect as in the case of award of compensation under Section
163 A of the Motor Vehicles Act; the strict applicability of the
structured formula as contained in the Second Schedule of the
Motor Vehicles Act has to be followed; this had been held by this
Court in a judgment in the case MAC APPEAL No.199/2011
decided on 19.4.2011 Jagdish & Anr. Vs. Madhav Raj Mishra. The
judgment of R.K.Malik & Anr. Vs. Kiran Pal & Ors. 2009(8) Scale
451 had granted fixed amount of `75,000/- under the head of non-
pecuniary damages; that was the case of a child victim; the said
judgment is inapplicable. Moreover, in this case also non-
pecuniary damages as noted hereinabove has been awarded in the
sum of `35,000/-. Appeal is disposed of accordingly.
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
SEPTEMBER 05, 2011
nandan
