Icici Lombard General Insurance ... vs Urmila & Ors.
2012 Latest Caselaw 2224 Del

*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                            Reserved on: 14th March, 2012
                                          Pronounced on: 30th March, 2012
+       MAC APP. 436/2011
        ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
                                                   .... Appellant
                         Through: Ms. Suman Bagga, Adv.
                  versus
        URMILA & ORS.                                    .... Respondents
                               Through:     Mr. Sunil Kumar Verma, Adv.
                                            for R-1 to R-4.
        CORAM:
        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
                                JUDGMENT

G. P. MITTAL, J.

1. The Appellant seeks reduction of compensation of ` 10,21,408/-

awarded for the death of Ram Bharose who died in a motor accident which occurred on 21.04.2010.

2. Following contentions are raised on behalf of the Appellant Insurance Company:-

(i) As per the Salary Slip Ex.PW-1/R-3, the deceased was getting a salary of `4862/-. The Claims Tribunal erred in adding 50% on account of inflation. No addition was permissible in the absence of any evidence as to the deceased's future prospects.

(ii) As per Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121, father is not to

be considered as a dependent. The Claims Tribunal erred in deducting one-fourth towards the personal and living expenses instead of one-third as the dependents were just three.

3. The Appeal must succeed on both counts.

4. The deceased was employed as a helper in Bazaar Konnections, Plot No.369, Sec. 37, Udyog Vihar, Gurgaon, Haryana. Except the salary slip there was no evidence of future prospects. Thus, no addition in income could be made towards future prospects.

5. In Dhaneshwari & Another v. Tajeshwar Singh & Others, MAC.

APP 997/2011 decided on 19.3.2012, after noticing the Judgments of this Court in Smt. Anari Devi v. Shri Tilak Raj & Anr., II (2004) ACC 739; (2005 ACJ 1397), National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pooja & Ors., II (2006) ACC 382 (2007 ACJ 1051), Om Kumari & Ors. v. Shish Pal & Ors, 140 (2007) DLT 62, Narinder Bishal & Anr. v. Rambir Singh & Ors.,MAC APP. 1007-08/2006, decided on 20.02.2008, New India Assurance Co. Ld. v. Vijay Singh MAC APP. 280/2008 decided on 09.05.2008; Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Smt. Rajni Devi & Ors. MAC APP.286/2011 decided on 06.01.2012; Smt. Gulabeeya Devi v. Mehboob Ali & Ors. MAC APP.463/2011 decided on 10.01.2012 and IFFCO TOKIO Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd. v. Rooniya Devi & Ors. MAC APP.189/2011 decided on 30.01.2012 and Division Bench Judgments of this Court in

Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr. v. Kumari Lalita 22 (1982) DLT 170 (DB) and Rattan Lal Mehta v. Rajinder Kapoor & Anr. II (1996) ACC 1 (DB), this Court has held that in view of Rattan Lal Mehta (supra) increase in minimum wages cannot be given on account of future inflation.

6. The deceased was working in Gurgaon, Haryana. The minimum wages of a highly skilled person in Haryana on the date of the accident were ` 4862/- only.

7. The Respondents (the Claimants) would be entitled to compensation on the basis of this income without any addition and one-third of deceased's income has to be deducted towards his personal and living expenses as there was no evidence that the deceased's father was dependent.

8. The loss of dependency comes to ` 6,22,335/- (4862/- x 2/3 x 12 x 16).

9. The Claims Tribunal awarded a sum of ` 60,000/- towards Loss of Love and Affection. As 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 under this

head to `25,000/- only.

10. The overall compensation is recomputed as under:-

Sl. No. Compensation under various Awarded by heads this Court

1. Loss of Dependency ` 6,22,335/-

               2.      Loss of Love & Affection                         `25,000/-
               3.      Loss to Estate                                   ` 10,000/-
               4.      Loss of Consortium                               ` 10,000/-
               5.      Funeral Expenses                                 ` 10,000/-
                                                  Total            ` 6,77,335/-

11. The compensation is thus reduced from ` 10,21,408/- to ` 6,77,335/-.

12. The excess amount of ` 3,44,073/- along with the proportionate interest @ 7.5% and the interest if any, accrued during the pendency of the Appeal shall be refunded to the Appellant Insurance Company.

13. Statutory amount deposited shall also be refunded to the Appellant Insurance Company.

14. The Appeal is allowed in above terms.

15. Pending application also stands disposed of.

(G.P. MITTAL) JUDGE MARCH 30, 2012 vk