Delhi High Court
National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Ram Prasad & Ors on 3 August, 2012
Author: G.P. Mittal
$~17
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 3rd August, 2012
+ MAC.APP. 586/2012
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. ..... Appellant
Through Ms. Neerja Sachdeva,Advocate
versus
RAM PRASAD & ORS ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Sushil Kumar, Advocate
for the Respondents No.1 to 3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
JUDGMENT
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
1. The Appeal is directed against a judgment dated 27.02.2012
passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal(the Claims
Tribunal) whereby a compensation of `7,79,000/- was awarded
in favour of the Respondents No.1 to 3. In addition, a further
sum of `30,000/- was awarded towards counsel's fee.
2. It may be noticed that the Claim Petition filed under Section
166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (the Act) was converted under
Section 163-A of the Act. It is no longer res integra that in a
Claim Petition under Section 163-A of the Act, compensation
has to be awarded strictly as per the structured formula given in
Schedule II to the Act. This Court in 'Anarkali & Anr. v. Raj
Kumar & Anr.' (MAC APP. 341/2012) decided on 11.04.2012
while relying on Oriental Insurance Company v. Hansrajbhai
v. Kodala, (2001) 5 SCC 175, Deepal Girishbhai Soni v. United
India Insurance Company Limited, (2004) 5 SCC 385 and
Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Meena Variyal (2007)
5 SCC 428 held that in a Petition under Section 163-A of the
Act, there is a cap of `40,000/- on the income and the
compensation for non-pecuniary damages has also to be in
consonance with the Second Schedule. The loss of dependency
in this case thus comes to `4,53,333/- (`40,000/- x 2/3 x 17).
3. The Respondents No.1 to 3 would be further entitled to a sum
of `5,000/- towards loss of consortium, `2,000/- towards loss to
estate and `2,500/- towards funeral expenses. Thus, the overall
compensation is reduced from `7,79,000/- to `4,62,833/-.
4. The Claims Tribunal while disposing of the Claim Petition
awarded a sum of `30,000/- towards counsel's fee. This Court
in 'ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kanti Devi &
Ors.' (MAC. APP. 645/2012) through which a number of
Appeals were decided on 30.07.2012, interpreted the Rules for
awarding the costs while deciding a Claim Petition. The
counsel's fee is payable only in terms of Rule 1 read with Rule
1A and Rule 9 of Chapter 16 Volume 1 of the Delhi High Court
Rules and subject to filing the certificate of fee. No such
certificate has been filed by the counsel for the
Respondents(Claimants). The order with regard to the payment
of counsel fee is, therefore, set aside.
5. By an order dated 25.05.2012 while issuing notice of the
Appeal, the execution of the award was stayed subject to
deposit of 60% of the award amount along with upto date
interest. If there is any shortfall, the same shall be made up by
the Appellant Insurance Company. If the amount has been
deposited in excess, the same shall be refunded to the Appellant
Insurance Company.
6. The amount held payable to the Respondents No.1 to
3(Claimants) shall be disbursed to them in the proportion as
directed by the Claims Tribunal.
7. The Appeal is allowed in above terms.
8. Pending Applications stand disposed of.
9. No costs.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
AUGUST 03, 2012
pst
