Sandeep Tomar & Anr vs Oriental Insurance Co Ltd & Ors
2012 Latest Caselaw 3515 Del

*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                         Reserved on: 17th May, 2012
                                      Pronounced on: 25th May, 2012
+       MAC.APP. 28/2010

        SANDEEP TOMAR & ANR                        ..... Appellant
                    Through            Mr. Anil Gera with Mr. Rakesh
                                       Chaudhary, Advocates
                      versus


        ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD & ORS ..... Respondent
                     Through  Mr. Santosh Paul with
                              Ms. Mohita Bagai, Advocates

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

                               JUDGMENT

G. P. MITTAL, J.

1. The Appeal is for enhancement of compensation of `67,000/-

awarded for the death of Shivani Tomar, the Appellant's sister who died in a motor accident which occurred on 30.12.2003.

2. It was established on record that the deceased was an MBA from Kurukshetra University and was working as an Apprentice in R.K. Constructions Company and getting a stipend of `7000/- per month. The Trial Court held that the Appellants were highly placed persons and were not financially dependent on their deceased's sister Shivani Tomar. The Claims Tribunal

declined to grant any compensation on account of loss of dependency and awarded a sum of `50,000/- only towards loss of love and affection. A notional sum of `10,000/- was awarded towards loss to estate and `7,000/- towards funeral expenses.

3. It is not in dispute that the Appellants were not financially dependent on the deceased. In fact, the deceased's father who also died in this very accident was running a partnership firm in the name and style of M/s. Tomar Construction Company having a turnover of `1.5 Crores per annum. A compensation of `2,17,33,666/- was awarded in the connected case in favour of the Appellants for loss of financial dependency. There is no manner of doubt that the Appellants were not financially dependent on the deceased and were not entitled to any compensation on account of loss of dependency.

4. The case is squarely covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Manjuri Bera(Smt.) v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., (2007) 10 SCC 643, wherein it was held that although even when there is no loss of dependency, a legal representative would be eligible to maintain a Petition under Sections 166, 140 or 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act but would not be entitled to any compensation towards loss of dependency. Para 15 of the report is extracted hereunder:

"15. Judged in that background where a legal representative who is not dependant files an application for compensation, the quantum cannot be less than the liability referable to Section 140 of the

Act. Therefore, even if there is no loss of dependency the claimant if he or she is a legal representative will be entitled to compensation, the quantum of which shall be not less than the liability flowing from Section 140 of the Act..."

5. In the circumstances of the case, the award of compensation of `67,000/- cannot be faulted.

6. The Appeal is devoid of any merit; the same is accordingly dismissed.

(G.P. MITTAL) JUDGE MAY 25, 2012 pst