Delhi High Court
United India Insurance Co Lt vs Shakuntla Devi & Ors on 14 March, 2012
Author: G.P. Mittal
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 14th March, 2012
+ MAC.APP. 48/2012
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LT ..... Appellant
Through Mr. Sameer Nandwani, Adv.
for Mr. K.L. Nandwani, Adv.
versus
SHAKUNTLA DEVI & ORS ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Nitin Yadav, Adv. for
Respondents No.1 to 7
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
JUDGMENT
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
CM APPL. No.700/2012 in MAC. APP. 48/2012
1. By virtue of this application, the Appellant United India
Insurance Co. Limited seeks permission to lead additional evidence. It
wants to prove the report of the investigator forwarded to the
Advocate by a letter dated 11.10.2011.
2. A perusal of the record shows that the claim petition was filed
on 18.09.2009. Before that date AIR (Accident Information Report)
had already been filed and its copy was received by the Appellant
insurance company. Obviously alongwith AIR copy of the driving
license of the driver was also received. In any case a copy of driving
license was filed by the Respondent No.1 on 18.09.2009 along with
the claim petition. The Appellant put an appearance and filed written
statement on 28.01.2010. The Appellant had sufficient time to obtain
verification report. By an order dated 15.09.2011 the Appellant was
given last opportunity to produce its evidence on the next date
i.e.31.10.2011. The counsel for the Appellant Insurance Company
himself closed the Appellant's evidence on 31.10.2011. In the
circumstances, the Appellant has not been able to make out a case for
leading additional evidence in appeal.
3. CM Appl. No.688/2012 accordingly disposed of.
MAC. APP. 48/2012
4. Issue notice. Mr. Nitin Yadav, accepts notice on behalf of
respondents No.1 to 7. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the
appellant that since his application for additional evidence has been
dismissed, service of Respondents No.8 & 9 may be dispensed with.
Ordered accordingly.
5. With the consent of counsel for parties the appeal is taken up
for final disposal. In view of the dismissal of the application for
additional evidence, the only ground raised by learned counsel for the
Appellant is that Respondents No.5, 6 and 7 were the deceased's
married daughters and Respondent No.3 was the deceased father.
They were not financially dependent on the deceased and therefore
there should be 1/3rd deduction towards personal and living expenses
instead of 1/5th taken by the Tribunal. The deceased's father (the
Respondent No.3) was aged 75 years, I would consider him financially
dependent on the deceased. At the same time respondents No.5, 6 and
7 were married daughters and happily staying with their respective
husbands and they were not financially dependent on the deceased.
The deceased was aged 53 years, the deduction towards personal
expenses ought to have been 1/4th (considering the number of
dependants as four) instead of 1/5th. The loss of dependency is
recomputed as 20,13,462/- (`20,338/- per month x 12 x ¾ x 11)
6. A compensation of Rs.40,000/- was awarded towards loss of
Love and Affection. Normally a sum of Rs.25,000/- is awarded under
this head ("Baby Radhika Gupta V. Oriental Insurance Company
Limited (2009) 17 SCC 627"). However, this was only marginally
higher than the normal award. I would not like to interfere with the
same. Overall compensation is reduced from `22,22,693/- to
`20,13,462/-
7. By an order dated 13.01.2012 the appellant insurance company
was granted stay subject to deposit the award amount. It is submitted
by the learned counsel for the appellant that the award amount has not
yet been deposited. The award amount along with interest @7.5% p.a.
shall be deposited with the Claims Tribunal and shall be apportioned
as under:
`50,000/- alongwith proportionate interest each to
Respondents No.3, 5, 6 and 7;
`1,00,000/- alongwith proportionate interest to
Respondent No.4; `4,00,000/- along with proportionate
interest to Respondent No.2 and rest of them alongwith
proportioned interest to the First Respondent.
8. Appeal is allowed in above terms.
9. Statutory amount of `25,000/- shall be refunded to the
Appellant.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
MARCH 14, 2012
ns
