Delhi High Court
Reliance General Insurance Co. ... vs Smt. Lalita & Ors. on 14 May, 2012
Author: G.P. Mittal
$~14
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision:14th May, 2012
+ MAC. APP. No.425/2011
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD...... Appellant
Through: Mr. K.L.Nandwani, Advocate
Versus
SMT. LALITA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. R.L. Sharma, Advocate for
the Respondents No.5 & 6.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
JUDGMENT
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
1. The Appellant Insurance Company impugns a judgment dated
31.01.2011 whereby a compensation of `30,37,000/- was
awarded for the death of Sudhir Kumar Sharma who died in an
accident which occurred on 17.10.2009.
2. The Appellant's grievance is that it was not given opportunity
to prove that the driver did not possess a valid driving licence
and that the compensation awarded is exorbitant and excessive.
3. The application for additional evidence filed by the Appellant
Insurance Company was dismissed by an order dated
07.02.2012 wherein it was held that sufficient opportunity was
granted to the Appellant Insurance Company to prove its
defence. Since no evidence was produced by the Insurance
Company to prove that the Respondent No.5 (Joginder) the
driver of the offending vehicle did not possess any valid driving
licence on the date of the accident, the Appellant Insurance
Company having failed to discharge the onus, cannot avoid its
liability to indemnify the insured.
4. As far as quantum of compensation is concerned, the only
ground of challenge is that the compensation of `1,00,000/-
awarded towards loss of love and affection is on the higher side.
5. The 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 ` 25,000/- (in total to all the claimants)
only under the head of loss of love and affection. Thus, I would
reduce the compensation under this head to `25,000/- only.
6. No other contention has been raised.
7. The compensation thus stands reduced from `30,37,000/- to
`29,62,000/-.
8. It was urged that the interest on the award amount granted @
9% was excessive and exorbitant. The contention raised is
totally misconceived. Normally, the Claims Tribunal and the
Courts in Motor Accident Claims cases grant interest as per the
bank rate of interest on long-term fixed deposits prevalent at the
time of the accident. This accident took place in the year 2009
and the Claim Petition came to be decided in the year 2011.
During this period, the rate of interest on long-term deposits
were in the vicinity of 8 to 9% per annum. Thus, the Claims
Tribunal was justified in granting the interest @ 9% per annum.
Thus, it cannot be said to be exorbitant and excessive.
9. The excess amount of `75,000/- along with proportionate
interest and the interest, if any, accrued during the pendency of
the Appeal shall be refunded to the Appellant Insurance
Company.
10. The amount of compensation along with interest as held payable
by this Court shall be released/held in Fixed Deposit in favour
of the Respondents (Claimants) in terms of the order passed by
the Claims Tribunal.
11. The statutory amount of `25,000/- shall be returned to the
Appellant Insurance Company.
12. The Appeal is allowed in above terms.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
MAY 14, 2012
vk
