Delhi High Court
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Santosh Choudhary & Ors. on 17 May, 2012
Author: G.P. Mittal
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on: 29th February, 2012
Pronounced on: 17th May, 2012
+ MAC APP. 288/2008
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. .... Appellant
Through: Mr. P.K. Seth, Advocate
versus
SANTOSH CHOUDHARY & ORS. .... Respondents
Through: Ms. Shivambika Singh, Adv.
Mz. Zeba Khair, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
JUDGMENT
G. P. MITTAL, J.
1. The Appellant New India Assurance Company Limited
impugns a judgment dated 20.12.2007 whereby a compensation
of `16 lacs was awarded to Respondents No.1 to 5 for the
injuries suffered by Late Satyapal Choudhary in a motor
accident which occurred on 14.10.2002 and ultimately resulted
in his death on 14.02.2004 i.e. after about a period of 16 months
of the accident.
2. In the entire compensation, except the compensation of
`2,92,760/- awarded towards loss of dependency, no other
compensation has been disputed. The compensation of `16 lacs
was largely awarded towards the medical treatment of the
deceased. The compensation awarded is tabulated hereunder:-
Sl. Compensation under various heads Awarded by the
Claims Tribunal
No.
1. Compensation of Loss of `2,92,760/-
Dependency
2. Medical Expenses ` 9,05,204/-
3. Other Expenses ` 2,82,890/-
4. Love & Affection & Loss of Estate ` 10,000/-
5. Loss of Consortium ` 5,000/-
6. Funeral Expenses ` 2,000/-
7. Compensation towards Attendant ` 1,02,146/-
charges, Special Diet & Conveyance
Total ` 16,00,000/-
3. The only ground raised during the hearing of the Appeal is that
the deceased had an income of `87,829/- from his business (as
per Income Tax Return filed for the Assessment Year 2001-02).
After the death of deceased Satyapal Choudhary, the business
was being run by his son Narender Kumar Choudhary as
admitted by the deceased's widow (PW-1) in her cross-
examination. Thus, there was no loss of dependency. It is
urged that it was only the deceased's widow who was
financially dependent. The Claims Tribunal ought to have
awarded the compensation on the basis of supervisory services
rendered by the deceased in running the shop and deduction of
50% should have been made towards personal and living
expenses of the deceased as against one-third made by the
Claims Tribunal. To support his contention, learned counsel for
the Appellant relies on New India Assurance Company Ltd. v.
Yogesh Devi & Ors. 2012 (2) SCALE 409.
4. I have gone through the cross-examination of Smt. Santosh
Choudhary (PW-1). On the question of running of the shop after
the death of her husband, she deposed as under:-
"... My husband was aged 70 years at the time of
accident. He was not suffering from high blood pressure,
sugar or any other disease. My husband was running a
book store with the name of Piccadily Book Stall at 64
Shankar Market, Connaught Place. My son Narender
used to sit in a shop alongwith my husband. Today, my
son Narender who is aged 48 years is running the shop
but because of the death of my husband, the business has
come down considerably. After the death of my husband,
Narender has taken control of the shop and is not giving
any financial help and I am not aware how much, he is
earning from the said shop. It is wrong to suggest that
my husband was earning `15,000/- p.m. The shop in
Shankar Market was owned by my husband. It is correct
that after the death of my husband I (sic) alongwith my
children have become the owner of the said shop.."
5. Satyapal Choudhary died after a prolonged treatment for 16
months in G.B. Pant Hospital and Apollo Hospital. It is true that
it was only the widow who was financially dependent on the
deceased. Santosh Choudhary's testimony that although she
became joint owner of the shop along with her son, yet she was
not being paid anything by her son was not rebutted by
producing any evidence.
6. In Yogesh Devi (supra) the value of the Managerial Services
rendered in the management of the three buses was taken as
`10,000/- per month to award the compensation to the legal
representatives of the deceased who owned those three buses.
In this case, although the deceased's income was claimed to be
`15,000/- per month from his business, but it was proved to be
only `7319/- per month on the basis of the Income Tax Return.
7. Since the son who came in possession of the shop did not
provide any financial assistance to his mother (widow of the
deceased), she was entitled to compensation on the basis of the
deceased's income of ` 7319/- per month. Normally, when the
dependent is just one, deduction of 50% would be made towards
the personal and living expenses of the deceased.
8. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case
that the deceased lost her husband at a very old age and the fact
that compensation of just `10,000/- has been awarded towards
loss of love and affection and loss to estate, a sum of `5,000/-
towards loss of consortium and `2,000/- towards funeral
expenses, I would not interfere with the award of compensation
of `2,92,760/- towards the loss of dependency.
9. The Appeal therefore has to fail; the same is accordingly
dismissed.
10. The statutory amount of `25,000/- be refunded to the Appellant
Insurance Company.
11. Pending application also stands disposed of.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
MAY 17, 2012
vk
