National Insurnace Co. Ltd. vs Rekha & Ors.
2012 Latest Caselaw 7119 Del

$ 32
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                         Date of decision: 12th December, 2012
+        MAC. APP. 902/2012

         NATIONAL INSURNACE CO. LTD.             ..... Appellant
                      Through: Mr. Pradeep Gaur, Advocate.

                        Versus

         REKHA & ORS.                           ..... Respondents
                              Through:     Mr. R.K. Jain, Advocate           for   the
                                           Respondents No.1 to 5.

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

                                  JUDGMENT

G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)

1. The Appeal is for reduction of compensation of `20,37,566/- awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal(the Claims Tribunal) in favour of the Respondents No.1 to 5 for the death of Ram Narayan who died in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 09.10.2007.

2. The finding on negligence reached by the Claims Tribunal is not challenged by the Appellant Insurance Company; thus the same has attained finality.

3. During the inquiry before the Claims Tribunal, it was claimed that the deceased was in private employment and was having an income of `1,30,225/- per annum. It was the Claimants' case that he (the deceased) was aged 44 years on the date of the accident. The Claims Tribunal made an addition of 30% towards future prospects/inflation, deducted 1/4 th

towards personal and living expenses and applied the multiplier of 14 to compute the loss of dependency as `17,77,566/-. The same is not disputed by the Appellant. The Claims Tribunal further awarded a sum of `10,000/- towards funeral expenses, `1,00,000/- towards loss to estate, `50,000/- towards loss of consortium and `1,00,000/- towards loss of love and affection. The Claims Tribunal further awarded a counsel's fee of `50,000/-. The Appellant challenges the award of non-pecuniary damages on the ground that the same is exorbitant and excessive as also the counsel's fee on the ground that the same is not in consonance with the Delhi High Court Rules and Orders.

4. In Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr, (2009) 6 SCC 121, the Supreme Court laid down that while awarding the compensation in fatal accident cases apart from awarding compensation on account of loss of dependency, a conventional amount in the range of `5,000/- to `10,000/- may be added as loss of estate. It was further laid down that where the deceased is survived by his widow, another conventional sum in the range of `5,000/- to `10,000/- should be added under the head of loss of consortium. It was stated that no amount should be awarded under the head of pain and suffering or hardship caused to the legal heirs of the deceased. Thus, the compensation of `1,00,000/- awarded towards loss to estate is reduced to `10,000/-. Similarly, the compensation amount of `50,000/- awarded towards loss of consortium is reduced to `10,000/-.

5. 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) under the head of loss of love and affection. Thus, I would reduce the compensation under this head to `25,000/- only.

6. The Claims Tribunal while disposing of the Claim Petition awarded a sum of `72,000/- 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. This Court held that 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 before pronouncement of judgment. 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.

7. The compensation amount is reduced from `20,37,566/- to `18,32,566/-.

8. The excess amount of `2,05,000/- along with proportionate interest and the interest accrued, if any, during the pendency of the Appeal shall be refunded to the Appellant Insurance Company.

9. The amount payable shall be disbursed/held in fixed deposit in favour of the Claimants in terms of the orders passed by the Claims Tribunal.

10. The Appeal is allowed in above terms.

11. Statutory amount of `25,000/-, if any, shall be refunded to the Appellant Insurance Company.

12. Pending Applications stand disposed of.

(G.P. MITTAL) JUDGE DECEMBER 12, 2012/pst