New India Assurance Co.Ltd. vs Annu & Ors.
2012 Latest Caselaw 6934 Del

$~13
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                        Date of Decision: 4th December, 2012

+     MAC. APP. 777/2012

      NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD.                 ..... Appellant
                   Through: Mr.K.K.Bhat, Advocate
                    versus
      ANNU & ORS.                                           ..... Respondents
                             Through:    Mr.D.K.Sharma, Advocate for R-1 to R-6

      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL


                                 JUDGMENT

G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL) CM APPL.12439/2012(delay)

1. There is a delay of 38 days in filing the Appeal.

2. For the reasons as stated in the Application, the delay in filing the Appeal is condoned.

3. The Application stands disposed of.

MAC. APP. 777/2012

1. The Appellant New India Assurance Company impugns a judgment dated 15.03.2012 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) whereby a compensation of ` 25,92,184/- was awarded in

favour of the legal representatives of the deceased Anil Kumar for his death in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 27.03.2010.

2. There is twin challenge to the judgment. First, the appropriate multiplier at the age of 36 years was 15, the Claims Tribunal erred in applying the multiplier of 16. Second, the medical bills for expenditure of ` 1,21,000/- alleged to be spent on deceased's treatment before he succumbed to the injuries were not produced and thus, ` 1,21,000/- could not be awarded in favour of the Claimants.

3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for Respondents No.1 to 6 (Claimants) urges that the compensation awarded is just and reasonable as the deceased was aged 35 years on the date of the accident.

4. The learned counsel for the respondents No. 1 to 6 argue that the First Respondent's testimony with regard to the expenditure was not challenged. The Claims Tribunal was, therefore, justified in awarding the compensation of ` 1,21,000/- towards expenditure of medical treatment of deceased Anil Kumar.

5. I have before me the Trial Court record. In the Ration Card placed on record, the year of birth of deceased Anil Kumar has been shown as 1975. This accident took place on 27.03.2010, thus as per the Ration Card deceased Anil Kumar was aged only 35 years. The First Respondent as PW1 also proved that the deceased Anil Kumar's identity card issued by the MCD, Delhi is Ex. PW1/J. The identity card issued on 11.03.2008 shows the deceased's age as 33 years. Thus, according to the identity card

also deceased Anil Kumar was about 35 years on the date of that accident. In the circumstances, the age of the deceased Anil Kumar has to be taken as 35 years for applying the multiplier to compute the loss of dependency. The Claims Tribunal rightly adopted the multiplier of 16 to compute the loss of dependency.

6. As far as the compensation of ` 1,21,000/- towards medical treatment is concerned, immediately after the accident the deceased was removed to Dr. Hedgewar Hospital, Karkardooma, New Delhi. The relatives of deceased Anil Kumar were not satisfied with the treatment being given to deceased Anil Kumar. He was, therefore, shifted to Mool Chand Kharati Ram Hospital, New Delhi. The First Respondent as PW1 proved the receipt Ex. PW1/ A collectively. On first occasion, that is, on 28.03.2010 a sum of ` 51,000/- was deposited on behalf of deceased Anil Kumar through credit card. On the second occasion, that is, on 01.04.2010 a sum of ` 60,000/- (a sum of ` 40,000/- by cash and ` 20,000/- by credit card) was deposited. Just after two days, that is, on 03.04.2010 a sum of ` 10,000/- was also deposited by cash. PW1's testimony regarding this expenditure was not challenged in cross-examination. No suggestion was given to her that this amount was reimbursed to the legal representatives of deceased Anil Kumar by the MCD, Delhi.

7. Therefore, the Claims Tribunal rightly awarded a sum of ` 1,21,000/-

towards expenditure incurred on the medical treatment in Mool Chand Kharati Hospital, New Delhi.

8. Thus, the Appeal has to fail; the same is accordingly dismissed.

9. The statutory deposit of ` 25,000/-, if any, shall be refunded to the Appellant New India Assurance Company.

10. The amount deposited shall be disbursed/ held in fixed deposit in favour of the Respondents (Claimants) in terms of the order passed by the Claims Tribunal.

11. Pending Applications stand disposed of.

(G.P. MITTAL) JUDGE DECEMBER 04, 2012 v