Delhi High Court
National Insurance Company Ltd vs Savitri Devi & Ors on 17 May, 2012
Author: G.P. Mittal
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on: 12th April, 2012
Pronounced on: 17th May, 2012
+ MAC.APP. 623/2007
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD...... Appellant
Through: Mr. Pradeep Gaur with
Ms. Mansi Gaur, Adv.
versus
SAVITRI DEVI & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Nemo.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
JUDGMENT
G. P. MITTAL, J.
1. The Appellant National Insurance Company Limited impugns a
judgment dated 12.06.2007 whereby a compensation of
`8,00,000/- was awarded for the death of Rishal Singh Gill who
died in a motor accident which occurred on 04.10.2005.
2. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal)
while passing the impugned judgment held that Respondents
No.1 to 6 were unable to prove that the accident was caused on
account of default, neglect or inaction of the driver of the tempo
No.DL-ILG-1492 (Respondent No.7).
3. The Claims Tribunal on the basis of the judgment of this Court
in Bala & Ors. v. Moti Chand Gupta, 107 (2003) DLT 643, held
that the Court can take recourse of Section 163-A of the Act and
grant relief in cases where negligence is not proved.
4. The Claims Tribunal believed the deceased's salary as a Munim
to be `5,000/- per month, made a deduction of one-fourth
towards the personal and living expenses and awarded a
compensation of `7,20,000/- towards loss of dependency,
`60,000/- towards loss of love and affection and `20,000/-
towards last rites, to award an overall compensation of
`8,00,000/-.
5. There is twin challenge to the impugned judgment. Firstly, the
learned counsel for the Appellant Insurance Company argues
that a Claim Petition under Section 166 of the Act could not
have been converted to the one under Section 163-A of the Act
without an application being moved by the Claimants.
Secondly, in a Petition under Section 163-A of the Act, the
compensation has to be awarded strictly as per the structured
formula.
6. It may be noticed that in pursuance of the order of this Court
dated 15.05.2008 on deposit of the award amount, 50% of the
amount was to be released in favour of Respondents No.1 to 6
in terms of the order passed by the Claims Tribunal. The said
50% already stands released to Respondents No.1 to 6 by order
dated 15.05.2008. Thereafter, there is no appearance on behalf
of Respondents No.1 to 6. There is implied consent to the
conversion of the Petition under Section 166 of the Act to one
under Section 163-A of the Act.
7. It is well settled that a Claim Petition under Section 163-A of
the Act can be entertained only in cases where the income of the
deceased or the injured is upto to `40,000/-. (Deepal Girishbhai
Soni v. United India Insurance Company Limited, (2004) 5 SCC
385 and MAC APP.304/2009 titled New India Assurance Co.
Ltd. v. Pitamber & Ors., decided on 23.01.2012).
8. The compensation in a Petition under Section 163-A of the Act
indubitably has to be awarded as per the structured formula and
the multiplier has to be taken into consideration as given in the
second schedule to calculate the loss of dependency. (I.
Damodaran & Anr. v. M.K. Valsala & Ors. 2008 ACJ 2082).
9. The Claimants (the Respondents No.1 to 6) claimed that the
deceased Rishal Singh Gill was working as a Munim with M/s.
Mahindra Flour Mills, DSIDC Industrial Area, Bawana and was
getting a salary of `5,000/- per month. In cross-examination, the
first Respondent admitted that she did not possess any
document to show that the deceased was employed in the Flour
Mills at Delhi and was earning `5,000/- per month. In the
circumstances, the deceased's income should have been taken to
be that of an unskilled worker as fixed under the Minimum
Wages Act by the Govt. of NCT of Delhi. The minimum wages
on 04.10.2005 were `3165/- per month.
10. The loss of dependency thus comes to `4,05,120/- (3165/- x 12
x 2/3 x 16).
11. On addition of the conventional sums of `9,500/- i.e. ` 2,000/-
towards loss to estate, `2,500/- towards funeral expenses and
`5,000/- towards loss of consortium, the overall compensation
comes to `4,14,620/-.
12. Thus the compensation stands reduced from `8,00,000/- to
`4,14,620/-.
13. 50% of the compensation i.e. `4,00,000/- with proportionate
interest has already been released in favour of the Claimants as
aforesaid. Rest of the amount of `14,620/- along with
proportionate interest shall be paid to the first Respondent.
14. The balance amount of `3,85,380/- 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 also be refunded to the
Appellant Insurance Company.
16. The Appeal is allowed in above terms.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
MAY 17, 2012/vk
