Delhi High Court
Hdfc Ergo General Insurance Co Ltd vs Ugam Devi & Ors on 12 March, 2012
Author: G.P. Mittal
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 12th March, 2012
+ MAC.APP. 11/2012
HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD
..... Appellant
Through: Ms.Neerja Sachdeva, Advocate
versus
UGAM DEVI & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Basant K.Gupta and
Mr.Sahil Arora, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
JUDGMENT
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
C.M. APPL. 170/2012(Delay)
There is a delay of 56 days in filing the Appeal.
For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed.
Delay of 56 days in filing the Appeal is condoned.
The application stands disposed of.
MAC.APP. 11/2012
1. The Appellant seeks reduction of compensation of ` 11,76,000/-
for death of Vijay Singh who died in an accident which occurred on
14.10.2009. He left behind a widow, two sons and a daughter. The
deceased was aged 42 years on the date of the accident. The
contentions raised on behalf of the Appellant are:
(i) No evidence was led by the Respondents to prove that the
deceased had bright future prospects in spite of this 30% increase in
deceased's gross salary was made.
(ii) Compensation of ` 1 lac awarded towards loss of Love and
Affection is excessive and exorbitant.
2. The Appeal is bound to succeed on both the grounds. It is well
settled that in order to award addition on account of the future
prospects some evidence has to be led by the legal representatives of
the deceased to show that the deceased had bright future prospects.
(Bijoy Kumar Dugar V. Bidyadhar Dutta & Ors., AIR 2006 SC 1255).
3. In this case a witness from employer appeared and simply
proved the certificate of employment Ex.PW-2/1 to show that the
deceased was getting a basic salary of ` 4904/-, HRA ` 1241/- and PF
` 596/-. In the absence of any evidence that the deceased had bright
future prospects or that he was in permanent employment it was not
permissible to grant future prospects. It is submitted by the learned
counsel for the Respondents that it is evident from the certificate
Ex.PW-2/1 that the deceased was in permanent employment.
4. I have carefully gone through the salary certificate. It nowhere
reveals that the deceased was in permanent employment. It does not
even disclose the duration of the deceased's employment. Thus the
Claims Tribunal ought not to have granted addition on account of
future prospects. The loss of dependency thus comes to ` 7,81,200/-
(6200x12x3/4x14).
5. 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. Thus, I would reduce the compensation from ` 1 lac
under this head to ` 25,000/- only.
6. The compensation awarded under other non-pecuniary Heads is
not interfered as the same has not been challenged in the grounds of
Appeal.
7. The overall compensation is reduced from ` 11,76,000 to `
8,66,200/-.
8. Since, the interest rates have started firming up during the last
one year and interest is being granted by Nationalized Banks @ 9%
per annum on long term deposits, I would not interfere in the grant of
interest @ 9% per annum by the Tribunal.
9. The excess amount along with proportionate interest and
interest accrued during the pendency of the Appeal shall be refunded
to the Appellant/Insurance Company. Statutory amount of ` 25,000/-
shall also be refunded to the Appellant through its counsel.
10. The amount held payable to Respondents No. 1 and 2 shall be
paid in the proportion and in the manner as directed by the Claims
Tribunal. Pending applications also stand disposed of.
11. The Appeal is allowed in above terms.
12. No costs.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
MARCH 12, 2012
mr
