Delhi High Court
Icici Lombard General Insurance ... vs Rekha Devi & Ors. on 23 July, 2012
Author: G.P. Mittal
$~22
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision:23rd July, 2012
+ MAC. APP. No.1155/2011
ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
..... Appellant
Through: Ms. Neerja Sachdeva, Advocate
Versus
REKHA DEVI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Rajesh Kumar Singh,
Advocate for the Respondents
(Claimants).
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
JUDGMENT
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
1. The Appeal is for reduction of compensation of `9,34,612/-
awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal(the Claims
Tribunal) for the death of Upender Raut who died in a motor
vehicle accident which occurred on 29.03.2010.
2. The finding on negligence is not challenged by the Appellant
Insurance Company. Therefore, the same has attained finality.
3. The following contentions are raised on behalf of the Appellant:
(i) Since the Respondent No.4(the deceased's father)
could not have been considered financially
dependent on the deceased, there should have been
reduction of 1/3rd instead of 1/4th of the deceased's
income towards personal and living expenses.
Reliance is placed on Supreme Court Report in
Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation
& Anr, (2009) 6 SCC 121.
(ii) The Claims Tribunal erred in making an addition of
30% towards inflation, in the absence of any
evidence with regard to the bright future prospects
no addition was permissible in the deceased's
income.
(iii) A compensation of `40,000/- awarded towards loss
of love and affection was on the higher side.
4. The Appeal must fail on all the three counts.
5. The Respondent No.4 (the deceased's father) was aged 78 years
at the time of the accident. The Claims Tribunal dealt with this
aspect as under:
"....Here in the present case Smt. Rekha Devi in her
cross examination categorically stated that her father is
a senior citizen and not working anywhere. She also
stated that they do not have any agriculture income and
any income from other sources so in these premises the
plea taken by insurance company is not tenable. Hence
1/4th of this amount is to be deducted on account of
personal expenses of the deceased which amount he
would have spent on himself had remained alive...."
6. In the circumstances, the deceased's father was dependent on
the deceased Upender Raut. The Claims Tribunal was justified
in making a deduction of 1/4th towards personal and living
expenses.
7. As far as addition of 30% towards inflation is concerned, the
case is covered by the latest Supreme Court Judgment in
Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors., 2012
(4) SCALE 559. The contention raised on behalf of the
Appellant is accordingly rejected.
8. Loss of love and affection can never be measured in terms of
money. Normally a compensation of `25,000/- is awarded
towards loss of love and affection when full compensation is
awarded towards loss of dependency. In some cases the
Supreme Court has granted a higher compensation under this
head. In the circumstances, an award of `40,000/- towards loss
of love and affection cannot be said to be exorbitant and
excessive.
9. The Appeal is devoid of any merit; the same is accordingly
dismissed.
10. Statutory amount of `25,000/- shall be refunded to the
Appellant Insurance Company.
11. Pending Applications stand disposed of.
12. No costs.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
JULY 23, 2012
pst
