Delhi High Court
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Josphine James & Anr. on 13 January, 2012
Author: G.P. Mittal
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on: 9th December, 2011
Pronounced on:13th January, 2012
+ MAC APP. 433/2005
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. ...... Appellant
Through: Mr. A. K. De, Adv.
Versus
JOSPHINE JAMES & ANR. ...... Respondents
Through: Nemo.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
JUDGMENT
G. P. MITTAL, J.
1. The Appellant United India Insurance Co. Ltd. seeks reduction
of the compensation of ` 13,07,000/- awarded by the Tribunal in
Suit No.778/2003 on account of the death of Vishal James in an
accident which took place on 12.06.1998, when his car No.DL-
2CF-3431 was hit by a Truck No.RJ-14G-7596 which was
being driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver.
2. The contentions raised on behalf of the Appellant are: -
(i) Future prospects were granted to the Claimants in the
absence of any evidence.
(ii) The appropriate multiplier as per the age of the Claimant
i.e. 41 years is '14'. The Tribunal erred in applying the
multiplier of '15'.
3. The Appellant is bound to succeed on both counts. The
Respondents (Claimants) produced PW-5 Harpal Singh,
Proprietor of Meenakshi Automobiles. He deposed that the
deceased was working as a Motor Mechanic with him during
the year 1993-1998. Initially the deceased was working in
Delhi. He shifted his workshop at Bareilly Road, Haldwani and
the deceased too joined him there. He deposed that the
workshop at Haldwani was also closed and then shifted to
Gurgaon (after the accident). Future prospects can be granted
where the Claimant has produced evidence regarding the
increase of income in the course of the employment or business
or profession [Bijoy Kumar Dugar v. Bidya Dhar Dutta, (2006)
3 SCC 242] or if there is evidence of permanent/ stable
employment, but none was available here. In fact, the employer
himself was not having a permanent establishment as he had to
shift from Delhi to Haldwani and then to Gurgaon. He was
unable to produce any proof of his workshop at Haldwani
except the receipts for the payment of LIC premium, telephone
bills, visiting cards and photographs of the workshop Ex. PW-
5/1 to PW-5/8. The workshop at Haldwani was also shut down.
In the circumstances, the Tribunal erred in granting future
prospects to the deceased. Respondent Joshpine James was the
only Petitioner in the claim petition. The multiplier has to be as
per the age of the deceased or the Claimant whichever is higher.
The appropriate multiplier at the age of 41 years as per Sarla
Verma v. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121 is '14'. In the case of death
of an unmarried person a deduction of 50% is required to be
made towards personal and living expenses. The loss of
dependency thus comes to ` 5,000/- ÷ 2 x 12 x 14 = 4,20,000/-.
4. Where the Claimants are entitled to loss of dependency on
actual basis, normally a nominal sum is awarded under the head
of loss of love and affection. 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 only `
25,000/- (in total to all the claimants) under the head of loss of
love and affection.
5. I further award a sum of ` 15,000/- towards funeral expenses as
granted by the Tribunal and another sum of ` 10,000/- towards
loss of estate. The compensation of ` 3,42,000/- as granted by
the Tribunal on the basis of the report Ex.PW-4/A of the
survivor is not disputed. The same is accordingly maintained.
6. The overall compensation stands reduced from ` 13,07,000/- to
` 8,12,000/-. Considering that the accident took place in the
year 1998 and the Bank interest rate was very low in the
beginning of this century, award of interest @ 6% per annum
cannot be interfered with.
7. The Respondent No.1 shall be entitled to a sum of ` 8,12,000/-
with interest from the date of filing of the petition till the date of
deposit, which shall be released to the Respondent No.1 in
terms of the award of the Tribunal.
8. The Appeal is allowed in above terms.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
JANUARY 13, 2012
hs
