Delhi High Court
Oriental Insurance Company ... vs Roshni Devi & Ors. on 19 April, 2012
Author: G.P. Mittal
$~11
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision:19th April, 2012
+ MAC. APP. No.304/2011
ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED.
..... Appellants
Through: Mr. Saurav Kmar Tuteja,
Advocate
Versus
ROSHNI DEVI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.S.D. Sudhi, Advocate for
the Respondent
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
JUDGMENT
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
1. The Appeal is for reduction of compensation of Rs.4,87,380/-
awarded for the death of Jaipal Singh, who was a retired police
officer. He met with a tragic death at the age of 70 years. He
was survived by his widow Roshni Devi, the First Respondent
and his son Virender Singh, the Second Respondent, who was
an army officer.
2. The contentions raised on behalf of the Appellant Insurance
Company are:
i) That the deceased left behind only the widow as a
legal representative, who was financially dependent
on the deceased. The deduction of 1/3rd towards
personal expenses was not warranted, which should
have been 50%. 1/3rd of the deceased's income
towards loss to estate was not justified in view of
the pension of Rs.8,682/- per month.
ii) The compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- awarded towards
the loss of love and affection is exorbitant and
excessive.
3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Respondents
No.1 and 2 argues that the First Respondent was left without
any company at the fag end of his life as her only son was
posted in North-East. It is contended that in the circumstances,
the personal expenses were rightly taken as 1/3rd by the Claims
Tribunal and remaining 2/3rd should have been taken as the
loss of dependency.
4. The Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma v. Delhi
Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121 laid down
the following principles for grant of compensation in death
cases:-
"I. MULTIPLIER
Age of the Multiplier
deceased (in
years)
II. DEDUCTION FOR PERSONAL AND LIVING
EXPENSES
Deceased - unmarried
(i) Deduction towards personal expenses.
: 1/2 (50%)
(ii) Deduction where the family of the
bachelor is large and dependent on the
income of the deceased.
: 1/3rd (33.33%)
Deceased - married
(i) 2 to 3 dependent family members. : 1/3rd
(ii) 4 to 6 dependent family members : 1/4th
(iii) More than 6 family members : 1/5th
(iv) Subject to the evidence to the
contrary. : Father, brother and
sisters will not be
considered as
dependents.
5. The Supreme Court was very clear that in case of a bachelor,
there would be deduction of 50% towards the personal and
living expenses. In case of death of a married person where the
number of dependents are two to three, 1/3rd deduction towards
personal and living expenses was suggested. Therefore, even if
in case of the death of a married person leaving behind a
widow as the only financially dependent person, the deduction
towards personal and living expenses should be 50%.
However, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of
the case as the First Respondent has been left without any
company and is residing on her own in the Metropolitan city, I
would award a compensation of 2/3rd of the deceased's pension
towards loss of dependency.
6. The 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 from
`1,00,000/- to ` 25,000/- only.
7. The overall compensation is thus reduced from `4,87,380/- to
`4,12,380/-.
8. The excess amount of Rs.75,000/- along with proportionate
interest and the interest accrued during the pendency of the
Appeal shall be refunded to the Appellant Insurance Company.
9. The balance amount shall be released to the First Respondent in
terms of the order passed by the Claims Tribunal.
10. The Appeal is allowed in above terms.
11. The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- shall be refunded to the
Appellant Insurance Company.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
APRIL 19, 2012
pst
