Delhi High Court
Reliance General Insurance Co. ... vs Havanti Devi & Ors on 23 July, 2012
Author: G.P. Mittal
$~9
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision:23rd July, 2012
+ MAC. APP. No.648/2010
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Sameer Nandwani,
Advocate
Versus
HAVANTI DEVI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. S.N. Parashar, Advocate for
the Respondents No.1 to 7.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
JUDGMENT
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
1. The Appellant Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. impugns a
judgment dated 21.07.2010 passed by the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal(the Claims Tribunal) whereby a compensation
of `11,13,000/- was awarded for the death of Ram Chander
Manjhi who died in a motor accident which occurred on
09.10.2008.
2. On appreciation of evidence, the Claims Tribunal found that the
accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving of
Tata Tempo No.DL-1LG-4021. It was claimed that the
deceased was employed in a private company and was earning a
salary of `6,500/-. In the absence of any cogent evidence to
prove the deceased's employment and his salary, the Claims
Tribunal took the minimum wages of a matriculate, added 50%
towards inflation, deducted 1/5th towards personal and living
expenses and applied a multiplier of 15 relevant to the age of
the deceased to compute the loss of dependency as `9,08,000/-.
On addition of compensation towards pecuniary and non-
pecuniary heads, an overall compensation of `10,63,000/- was
awarded.
3. During hearing of the Appeal, the following contentions were
raised on behalf of the Appellant:
(i) There was no material on record to come to the
conclusion that the accident was caused because of
the rash and negligent driving of the driver of Tata
Tempo No.DL-1LG-4021. Thus, there was no
liability of the owner to pay the compensation and the
Claim Petition is liable to be dismissed.
(ii) There was no evidence of future prospects. The
Claims Tribunal added 50% in the deceased's income
on account of inflation, which is not permissible.
NEGLIGENCE:
4. While dealing with the issue on negligence, the Claims Tribunal
held as under:
"19. The onus to prove this issue was on petitioner.
Petitioner no.1 appeared in the witness box as PW-1.
She filed her examination in chief by way of affidavit
Ex.PW-1/A. She deposed that on the date of incident,
her husband was going on his scooter and when he
reached near petrol pump, Sector 3, Dwarka, the
offending vehicle came from back side and struck
against the scooter of her husband which resulted in
his death. Admittedly, she was not the witness to the
incident. However, certified copies of criminal
proceedings which were initiated on the basis of FIR
No.639/08, registered at PS Dwarka were placed on
record and were exhibited as Ex.P1.
20. Perusal of certified copy of criminal records
reveals that the same were initiated on statement of
Constable Hashan Imam, who was the witness to the
incident and he reported to the Investigating Officer
that incident had taken place due to negligence
driving of respondent no.1, who was driving the
offending vehicle in a negligent manner.
21. Perusal of this charge sheet further reveals that
respondent no.1 was arrested from the spot itself.
22. It has been held by Hon'ble High Court in
National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pushpa Rana
reported as 2009 ACJ 287 that whenever criminal
proceedings are filed along with the compensation
petition then that in itself is sufficient proof of
negligent driving of the person against whom a
charge sheet is filed.
23. In the present case, it is apparent from the
charge sheet that the offending vehicle had struck
against the scooter of Ram Chander Manjhi from
back side which fact in itself speaks about the
negligent manner in which respondent no.1 was
driving his truck."
5. It is true that the Petitioner (wife of the deceased) was not an
eye witness of the accident. The Respondents No.8 and 9 (the
driver and the owner) denied the averments of rash and
negligent driving on the part of Eighth Respondent by way of
filing of the written statement. They preferred not to contest the
proceedings after filing of the written statement and were
proceeded ex parte. The Eighth Respondent preferred not to
appear in the witness box to controvert the averments of rash
and negligent driving.
6. It is well settled that in a Claim Petition under Section 166 of
the M.V. Act negligence has to be proved only on touchstone of
preponderance of probability and a Claims Tribunal is required
to take a holistic view while dealing with a Claim Petition under
the Act. A reference may be made to a judgment of the
Supreme Court Bimla Devi and Ors. v. Himachal Road Transport
Corporation and Ors., (2009) 13 SC 530 where it was held as
under:
"15. In a situation of this nature, the Tribunal has
rightly taken a holistic view of the matter. It was
necessary to be borne in mind that strict proof of an
accident caused by a particular bus in a particular
manner may not be possible to be done by the
claimants. The claimants were merely to establish
their case on the touchstone of preponderance of
probability. The standard of proof beyond reasonable
doubt could not have been applied."
7. In view of the above, the Claims Tribunal was justified in
drawing an inference of negligence on the part of Respondent
No.8.
8. As far as addition on account of future prospects/inflation is
concerned, this Court in Rakhi v. Satish Kumar & Ors. (MAC.
APP. 390/2011) decided on 16.07.2012 relying on Santosh Devi
v. National Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors., 2012 (4) SCALE
559 held that the persons who are getting fixed salary or who
are self employed as menial, skilled and unskilled workers, like
barber, blacksmith, cobbler, mason, carpenter, etc. etc. would be
entitled to an increase in the income to the extent of 30% on
account of inflation when the deceased or the victim is aged
upto 50 years.
9. The loss of dependency would, therefore, come to `7,86,240/-
(`4200/- +30% x 4÷5 x12 x 15) instead of `9,08,000/-.
10. No other contention has been raised.
11. In view of the above discussion, the overall compensation is
reduced by `1,21,760/-. The excess amount of `1,21,760/-
along with proportionate interest and the interest accrued, if
any, during the pendency of the Appeal shall be refunded to the
Appellant Insurance Company.
12. The statutory amount of `25,000/- shall be refunded to the
Appellant Insurance Company.
13. The Appeal is allowed in above terms.
14. Pending Applications stand disposed of.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
JULY 23, 2012
pst
