Delhi High Court
Cholamandalam Ms General Ins. Co. ... vs Austin B Masih & Ors. on 7 May, 2012
Author: G.P. Mittal
$~18
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision:7th May, 2012
+ MAC. APP. No.1045/2011
CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INS. CO. LTD
..... Appellant
Through: Ms.Suman Bagga, Advocate
Versus
AUSTIN B MASIH & ORS.
..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjay Rathi, Advocate for
the Respondent No.1 to 4.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
JUDGMENT
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
1. The Appeal is for reduction of compensation of `11,96,600/-
awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims
Tribunal) for the death of Smt. Sitara A. Masih in an accident
which occurred on 05.07.2009.
2. The deceased was aged 68 years on the date of the accident and
had retired from the govt. service. She was getting a pension of
`10,742/-. She was working as a Nurse in Mount Carmel
School and was getting a salary of `10,000/- per month.
3. The Claims Tribunal took the deceased's income to be
`20,742/-, deducted one-third towards the personal and living
expenses and applied the multiplier of '7' to compute the loss of
dependency as `11,61,600/-.
4. After making a provision for compensation under conventional
heads, the overall compensation of `11,96,600/- was granted.
5. Following contentions are raised on behalf of the Appellant
Insurance Company:-
(i) At the age of 68 years, the appropriate multiplier was '5'
instead of '7' adopted by the Claims Tribunal.
(ii) There should have been deduction of 50% towards the
personal and living expenses as the deceased's children
have grown up and perhaps married.
6. While dealing with the deduction towards personal and living
expenses and the fact that the deceased was working as a Nurse
even at the age of 68 years, the Claims Tribunal held as under:-
"13. It was argued by Ld. counsel for Insurance
Company that the petitioners were not financially
dependent on the deceased so they are not entitled to any
compensation towards loss of dependency. I do not
agree with the contentions of Ld. counsel as it is seen
from the evidence that the deceased even after retirement
had been working. This itself suggests that her family
required certain augmentation of financial resources.
This constraint/requirement of the family would have
forced the deceased to join the profession even after
retirement."
7. The reasoning of the Claims Tribunal that the deceased required
augmentation of financial resources and that is why she was
working at the age of 68 years was logical. I would not like to
interfere with the finding that in the circumstance, the deduction
towards the personal and living expenses should have been 1/3rd
only.
8. The deceased's age is not disputed by the learned counsel for
the Respondents (Claimants). The appropriate multiplier on the
age of 68 years would be '5' instead of '7'.
9. The loss of dependency thus comes to `8,29,680/-(20,742/- x
2/3 x 12 x 5).
10. After adding a sum of `10,000/- towards funeral expenses and
`25,000/- towards loss of love and affection, the overall
compensation comes to `8,64,680/-.
11. The overall compensation thus stands reduced from
`11,96,600/- to `8,64,680/-.
12. It is urged that the award of interest @ 9% was excessive. I
would not agree. The bank rate of interest on long term
deposits since the year 2010 is about 9%. In the facts and
circumstances, it cannot be said that the interest awarded is
excessive.
13. As far as apportionment is concerned, the Respondents No.2 to
4 shall get a compensation of `1.5 lacs each along with
proportionate interest. Rest of the amount along with
proportionate interest shall be the share of the First Respondent,
the deceased's husband.
14. The excess amount of `3,31,920/- along with proportionate
interest and the interest accrued, if any, during the pendency of
the Appeal shall be refunded to the Appellant Insurance
Company.
15. The statutory amount of `25,000/- shall be refunded to the
Appellant Insurance Company.
16. The Appeal is allowed in above terms.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
MAY 07, 2012
pst
