Delhi High Court
National Insurance Company Ltd. vs Mankala Resmi & Ors. on 17 July, 2012
Author: G.P. Mittal
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 17th July, 2012
+ MAC.APP. 509/2010
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Manoj R. Sinha, Adv.
versus
MANKALA RESMI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Nemo.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
JUDGMENT
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
1. The Appellant National Insurance Company limited impugns a
judgment dated 14.05.2010 passed by the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) whereby a compensation
of `4,89,500/- was awarded in favour of Respondents No.1 to 4
for the death of Hem Bahadur Resmi who died in a motor
vehicle accident which occurred on 20.07.1997.
2. Following contentions are raised on behalf of the Appellant
Insurance Company:-
(i) The deceased was a gratuitous passenger and the
Appellant Insurance Company had no liability.
(ii) Even if, the Appellant Insurance Company was liable, the
compensation ought to have been awarded strictly as per
the structured formula given in the second schedule and
no addition towards the future prospects could have been
given by the Claims Tribunal.
3. Ms. Mankala Resmi, the deceased's wife filed her Affidavit and
entered the witness box as PW-1. Her testimony that on
20.07.1997 her husband was on duty on truck No.DL-1GA-
7323 was not challenged in cross-examination. She was not
given any suggestion that her husband was not working on this
truck and that he was a gratuitous passenger.
4. The contention raised in this regard is devoid of any merit and
is bound to be rejected.
5. As far as second contention is concerned, it is well settled that
in a Claim Petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988 (the Act) the compensation has to be awarded as per
the structured formula. (Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v.
Hansrajbhai v. Kodala (2001) 5 SCC 175; and Deepal
Girishbhai Soni & Ors. v. United India Insurance Co. Limited,
Baroda, (2004) 5 SCC 385).
6. The Claims Tribunal was, therefore, not justified in making
addition of 50% towards the future prospects.
7. Minimum Wages of an unskilled worker at the time of the
accident were about `1900/- per month. The Claims Tribunal
took the deceased's income to be `2,000/- per month. On this
income, the loss of dependency, as per the structured formula
comes to `2,88,000/- (2,000/- x 12 x 2/3 x 18)
8. In addition, the Claimants would be entitled to compensation of
`9,500/- i.e. towards non-pecuniary heads (`2,500/- towards
loss to estate, `5,000/- towards loss of consortium and `2,000/-
towards funeral expenses). The compensation thus comes to
`2,97,500/-.
9. The overall compensation stands reduced from `4,89,500/- to
`2,97,500/- which shall carry interest @ 7.5 % per annum from
the date of filing of the Petition till its payment.
10. The excess amount of `1,92,000/- along with proportionate
interest and the interest accrued, if any, during the pendency of
the Appeal shall be refunded to the Appellant Insurance
Company.
11. The compensation payable to the Respondents No.1 to 4 shall
be released in terms of the order passed by the Claims Tribunal.
12. The Appeal is allowed in above terms.
13. The statutory deposit of `25,000/- be refunded to the Appellant
Insurance Company.
14. Pending Applications also stand disposed of.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
JULY 17, 2012/vk
