Delhi High Court
Guddi vs Phool Singh & Ors. on 29 February, 2012
Author: G.P. Mittal
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 29th February, 2012
+ MAC APP. 1108/2011
GUDDI ...... Appellant
Through: Mr. Kishore M. Gajana with
Mr. Rajesh Chugh, Advocates
Versus
PHOOL SINGH & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Neerja Sachdeva, Advocate
for the Respondent No.3
Insurance Company
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
JUDGMENT
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
1. The Appellant who is legal representative of the deceased Ram
Bati being her daughter seeks enhancement of compensation of
`80,000/- awarded for her death.
2. It is urged by the learned counsel for the Appellant that for a
claim of compensation, the Claimant need not necessarily be
financially dependent on the deceased and the legal
representatives are entitled to compensation under Section 166
of the Motor Vehicles Act. Reliance is placed on a judgment of
Madhya Pradesh High Court in Gajanand & Ors. v. Virendra
Singh & Ors., 2010 ACJ 145, wherein it was held as under:
"13. So far as amount of compensation is
concerned, since no assessment has been made by the
learned Tribunal, therefore, the case could have been
remanded to the learned Tribunal for assessment of
compensation. However, since appellants are elder
brothers and financially well settled and were not
dependent on the deceased financially, but were
dependent on the deceased for number of reasons,
this court thinks fit to award a sum of `1,50,000/- as
compensation, which includes all the heads including
no fault liability."
3. There is no dispute about the proposition of law that the legal
representatives are entitled to maintain a Petition under Section
166 of the Act irrespective of their financial dependency.
4. In Manjuri Bera (Smt.) v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited
& Anr. (2007) 10 SCC 643, the question of award of
compensation for death of a married daughter came up for
consideration before the Calcutta High Court. The Claim
Petition filed by the deceased's mother was dismissed by the
Tribunal as also by the Calcutta High Court on the ground that
there was no loss of dependency. The Supreme Court referred
to the term „legal representative‟, as used under Section 168 of
the Motor Vehicles Act (the Act) with reference to its definition
under Section 2 (11) of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) and
held that the definition of „legal representative‟ as contained in
Section 2 (11) CPC is applicable to the Act and is inclusive in
character, its scope is wide and is not confined to legal heirs
only. The Supreme Court referred to Custodian of Branches of
BANCO National Ultramarino v. Nalini Bai Naique, 1989 Supp.
(2) SCC 275 and held that the legal representatives are entitled
to the statutory compensation payable under Section 140 of the
Act. Para 13 to 15 of the report are extracted hereunder:-
"13. There are several factors which have to be
noted. The liability under Section 140 of the Act
does not cease because there is absence of
dependency. The right to file a claim application
has to be considered in the background of right to
entitlement. While assessing the quantum, the
multiplier system is applied because of deprivation
of dependency. In other words, multiplier is a
measure. There are three stages while assessing
the question of entitlement. Firstly, the liability of
the person who is liable and the person who is to
indemnify the liability, if any. Next is the
quantification and Section 166 is primarily in the
nature of recovery proceedings. As noted above,
liability in terms of Section 140 of the Act does not
cease because of absence of dependency.
14. Section 165 of the Act also throws some
light on the controversy. The Explanation includes
the liability under Sections 140 and 163-A.
15. Judged in that background where a legal
representative who is not dependant files an
application for compensation, the quantum cannot
be less than the liability referable to Section 140 of
the Act. Therefore, even if there is no loss of
dependency the claimant if he or she is a legal
representative will be entitled to compensation, the
quantum of which shall be not less than the
liability flowing from Section 140 of the Act."
5. In para 10 of the affidavit Ex.PW1/AA filed during inquiry
before the Claims Tribunal, the Appellant deposed that she was
looking after the deceased being her only legal heir and was
entitled to succeed to the estate of the deceased. Thus, it is not
in dispute that the Appellant was not financially dependent on
the deceased. In the circumstances, I would award the
compensation of `50,000/- awarded under Section 140 towards
loss to estate and increase the sum of `15,000/- towards loss of
love and affection to `25,000/-, in addition to a sum of
`15,000/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal towards funeral
expenses.
6. The overall compensation is enhanced from `80,000/- to
`90,000/-.
7. The enhanced compensation of ` 10,000/- shall carry interest @
7.5 per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date
of payment.
8. Respondent No.3 the National Insurance Company Limited is
directed to deposit the enhanced amount along with interest
within 30 days with the Registrar General of this Court.
9. The amount along with interest shall be released to the
Appellant on deposit.
10. The appeal is allowed in above terms.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
FEBRUARY 29, 2012
pst
