Delhi High Court
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd vs Sunita Devi & Ors. on 24 August, 2012
Author: G.P. Mittal
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 24th August, 2012
+ MAC. APP. 583/2012
ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. ...... Appellant
Through: Mr. Pradeep Gaur, Adv.
versus
SUNITA DEVI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. S.N. Parashar, Adv. for the
Claimants.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
JUDGMENT
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
1. The Appeal is for reduction of compensation of `6,76,744/- awarded in
favour of the Respondents No.1 to 4 (the Claimants) for the death of
Ramesh Yadav, who died in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on
02.04.2006.
2. The only ground of challenge is that in a Petition (as in the instant case)
under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act) the
compensation is payable as per the structured formula given in the second
Schedule and there is a cap of income of `40,000/- per month in such
cases.
3. Mr. S.N. Parashar, Advocate concedes that in a Petition under Section
163-A of the Act the compensation has to be in accordance with the
structured formula.
4. The proposition of law is settled as per 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.
5. The deceased's income as per the minimum wages was taken as `3271/-
per month. The Claims Tribunal made an addition of 50% on account of
inflation which was not permissible. Similarly, the Claims Tribunal
awarded compensation of `50,000/- towards loss of love and affection.
6. As per the second Schedule of the Act only a compensation of ` 9,500/-
is payable towards loss to estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses.
7. It was established that the deceased was aged 26 years at the time of the
accident. Thus, instead of a multiplier of '17' as applied by the Claims
Tribunal, the appropriate multiplier would be '18'. The loss of
dependency thus comes to `4,71,024/- (3271/- x 2/3 x 12 x 18).
8. On adding a sum of `9,500/-, that is, (`2,500/- towards loss to estate,
`5,000/- towards loss of consortium and `2,000/- towards funeral
expenses), the overall compensation comes to `4,80,524/-, which shall
carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition
till its payment.
9. The compensation of `4,80,524/- along with interest shall be disbursed in
favour of the Claimants in terms of the order passed by the Claims
Tribunal.
10. The excess amount of `1,96,220/- along with proportionate interest and
the interest accrued, if any, during the pendency of the Appeal shall be
refunded to the Appellant Insurance Company.
11. The statutory deposit of `25,000/- shall be refunded to the Appellant
Insurance Company.
12. The Appeal is allowed in above terms.
13. Pending Applications also stand disposed of.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
AUGUST 24, 2012
vk
