Icici Lombard General Insurance ... vs Sakuntala Devi & Ors.
2012 Latest Caselaw 3015 Del

$~27

*        IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                        Date of decision:7th May, 2012
+        MAC. APP. No.443/2011

         ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD
                                      ..... Appellant
                       Through: Mr.Priyadarshi Gopal,
                                Advocate

                        Versus

         SAKUNTALA DEVI & ORS.
                                              ..... Respondents
                             Through:   Mr. S.N. Parashar, Advocate for
                                        the Respondents No.1 to 5.

         CORAM:
         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL

                             JUDGMENT

G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)

1. The Appeal is for reduction of compensation of `9,12,500/-

awarded for the death of one Rajinder Singh, who died in a motor accident which occurred on 07.06.2010.

2. Rajinder Singh (the deceased) was an agriculturist owning 2.026 hectares of land in Village Hilwardi, District Baghpat, UP. PW1 the First Respondent testified that her husband was working as a farmer and was earning `12,000/- per month. The First Respondent placed on record Kisanwahi which showed

that the deceased paid `900.20 as Malgujari of the land measuring 2.026 hectares which was owned by him. In the absence of any cogent evidence, the Claims Tribunal took the deceased income to be `5,000/-, added 50% towards inflation. Thus, the loss of dependency was awarded on the income of `7,500/-.

3. The Appellant Insurance Company submits that addition on account of future inflation was not permissible and in the absence of any evidence as to future prospects, even future prospects could not be granted.

4. This was established on record that the deceased was an agriculturist tilling his land on his own. The minimum wages of a skilled worker on the date of the accident were `6,448/-. The deceased was tilling the land and carrying out supervisory work of growing crops. The Appeal can be disposed of on the short ground that an income of `7,500/- for an agriculturist owning 2.026 hectares of land cannot be said to be excessive or exorbitant. The loss of dependency of `8,77,500/- and a compensation of `35,000/- towards non-pecuniary damages (loss of love and affection, loss of consortium, loss to estate and funeral expenses) cannot be said to be exorbitant or excessive.

5. The Appeal, therefore, has to fail. The same is accordingly dismissed.

6. The award amount as deposited in this Court shall be disbursed to the Respondents (Claimants) in terms of the order passed by the Claims Tribunal.

7. The statutory amount of `25,000/- shall be refunded to the Appellant Insurance Company.

(G.P. MITTAL) JUDGE MAY 07, 2012 pst