Delhi High Court
Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd vs Krishna Devi & Ors on 11 April, 2012
Author: G.P. Mittal
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on: 26th March, 2012
Pronounced on: 11th April, 2012
+ MAC. APP. 691/2011
SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Pankaj Seth, Advocate
Versus
KRISHNA DEVI & ORS ...... Respondents
Through: Mr. Anshuman Bal, Advocate for the
Respondents No.1 to 3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
JUDGMENT
G. P. MITTAL, J.
1. The Appellant Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. seeks
reduction of compensation of `4,49,537/- awarded for the death
of Subhash a bachelor aged 23 years on the date of the accident.
The Claimants before the Claims Tribunal were the parents and
an unmarried sister aged 18 years.
2. During inquiry before the Claims Tribunal, it was claimed that
the deceased Subhash had joined Gnomon Education Services
Pvt. Ltd. as a driver on a salary of `4,500/- on 01.05.2008. He
continued to work with the earlier said company till his death on
14.08.2009. A salary certificate Ex.PW3/B issued by Amit
Verma, CEO of the company was proved to show that his
(deceased's) salary was raised to `10,500/- and that his age of
retirement was January 15, 2046.
3. In order to establish the deceased's salary, the Claimants
examined PW3 Sunil Kumar Tiwari, Computer Operator
working with Gnomon Education Services Pvt. Ltd. He proved
copies of the attendance register running into eight sheets as
Ex.PW3/A(collectively) and the certificate with regard to the
salary and his (deceased's) retirement as Ex.PW3/B. In cross-
examination, the witness denied that the deceased's salary had
not been increased from `4,500/- to `10,500/- per month. In the
absence of production of any record with regard to the payment
of the actual salary during the relevant period, the Claims
Tribunal declined to accept the salary certificate and the
increase in the deceased's salary and it took the minimum
wages of a skilled worker, added 50% towards future prospects
to compute the loss of dependency.
4. The contentions raised on behalf of the Appellant Insurance
Company are:
i) In the absence of any evidence as to the future
prospects, the deceased was not entitled to any
addition in the minimum wages.
ii) The compensation of `75,000/- awarded towards
the loss of love and affection was exorbitant and
excessive.
5. Although PW3 Sunil Kumar Tiwari proved the attendance
sheets Ex.PW3/A and the certificate Ex.PW3/B. During the
course of cross-examination, he could not say as to on what
basis the deceased's salary was increased from `4,500/- to
`10,500/- per month within a short span of sixteen months.
The increase was, therefore, suspicious and could not have been
taken into consideration. At the same time, the certificate
Ex.PW3/B revealed that as per the company's policy, the
retirement of the deceased would have been 15.01.2046. It was
sufficient to show that the deceased was in permanent
employment. Though the increase was disbelieved on account
of the fact that it was astronomical; yet there was evidence that
the deceased had good future prospects on account of his
permanent employment. The Claimants (i.e. the parents) were
entitled to loss of dependency on the proved salary of `4,500/-
and an addition of 50% on account of future prospects on the
basis of the ratio of the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma & Ors.
v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121.
Thus, the loss of dependency comes to `3,64,500/-(4500 + 50%
X1/2 X 12 X 9).
6. A compensation of `75,000/- was awarded towards loss of love
and affection. Loss of love and affection can never be
measured in terms of money. Thus, uniformity has to be
adopted by the Courts while granting non-pecuniary damages.
The Supreme Court in Sunil Sharma v. Bachitar Singh (2011)
11 SCC 425 and in Baby Radhika Gupta v. Oriental Insurance
Company Limited (2009) 17 SCC 627 granted ` 25,000/- (in
total to all the claimants) only under the head of loss of love and
affection. Thus, I would reduce the compensation under this
head to ` 25,000/- only.
7. The compensation is recomputed as under:
Sl. Compensation under Awarded by Awarded by
various heads the Claims this Court
No. Tribunal
1. Loss of Dependency `3,54,537/- `3,64,500/-
2. Loss of Love & `75,000/- `25,000/-
Affection
3. Loss to Estate `10,000/- `10,000/-
4. Funeral Expenses `10,000/- `10,000/-
Total `4,49,537/- `4,09,500/-
(rounded to
`4,50,000/-)
8. The Claim Petition was filed in September, 2009 when the rate
of interest had started firming up. On long term deposits,
nationalized banks have started giving interest in the vicinity of
9% per annum. The Respondents(Claimants) were, therefore,
entitled to interest @ 9% per annum as against 7.5% per annum.
9. The difference between the compensation award granted by me
with the increased interest @ 9% and the compensation award
granted by the Claims Tribunal with interest @ 7.5% is
approximately Rs.20,000/-. Therefore, it cannot be said that the
compensation awarded is excessive or exorbitant. On the other
hand, I would consider the same to be fair and reasonable.
Thus, I would not like to interfere with the impugned judgment.
10. The Appeal is accordingly dismissed.
11. The statutory amount shall be refunded to the Appellant
Insurance Company.
12. No costs.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
APRIL 11, 2012
pst
