Delhi High Court
National Insurance Company vs Salik Ram & Ors on 25 May, 2012
Author: G.P. Mittal
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on: 14th May, 2012
Pronounced on: 25th May, 2012
+ MAC.APP. 707/2010
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY ..... Appellant
Through Mr. S.L. Gupta, Advocate
versus
SALIK RAM & ORS ..... Respondents
Through Mr. O.P. Mannie, Advocate for
the Respondents No.1 & 2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
JUDGMENT
G. P. MITTAL, J.
CM. APPL No.18995/2010(delay)
There is a delay of 118 days in filing the Appeal. It is urged
that the impugned judgment was passed by the Trial Court on
31.03.2010; the Respondents No.1 and 2 filed an Appeal for
enhancement of compensation; by an order dated 08.07.2010, the
compensation was enhanced from `3,80,000/- to `5,19,990/-
(`3,99,990 + `1,20,000/-); the Appellant applied for certified copy of
the order of this Court on 09.07.2010 and on 04.08.2010, Shri S.L.
Gupta, Advocate was instructed to file an Appeal against the award on
non-pecuniary damages.
For the reasons as stated in the application, the delay of 118
days in filing the Appeal is condoned.
The application stands disposed of accordingly.
MAC.APP. 707/2010
1. The Appellant impugns a judgment dated 31.03.2010 whereby
in a Petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988 (the Act) while awarding a sum of `2,60,000/- towards
loss of dependency, a compensation of `1,00,000/- was awarded
towards loss of love and affection and `10,000/- each towards
loss to estate and last rites by the Claims Tribunal.
2. It is urged by the learned counsel for the Appellant that in a
Claim Petition under Section 163-A of the Act, the
compensation for loss of dependency as also on account of non-
pecuniary damages has to be awarded as per the structured
formula. There is no dispute about the proposition of law which
is well settled.
3. This Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Pitamber & Ors.
(MAC.APP. No.304/2009 decided on 23.01.2012) and Pitamber
& Ors. v. Nirdosh Kumar & Anr. (MAC.APP. 345/2009
decided on 23.01.2012) held that in a Petition under Section
163-A of the Act, the compensation has to be awarded as per
the structured formula given in Schedule II of the Act. Thus, a
compensation of `2,000/- towards funeral expenses and `2,500/-
towards loss to estate was payable to the
Respondents(Claimants) instead of a sum of `1,00,000/-
towards loss of love and affection and `10,000/- each funeral
expenses and loss to estate.
4. It is urged by the learned counsel although the judgment dated
08.07.2010 passed by this Court has become final between the
parties, but it has to be borne in mind that while calculating the
loss of dependency, the multiplier has to be taken as per age of
the deceased while awarding compensation under Section 163-
A of the Act. Thus, instead of '15', the multiplier of '18' ought
to have been taken while calculating the loss of dependency. In
the peculiar circumstances of the case and the fact that the
Respondents (the parents of the deceased Deepak) are very poor
persons, I am not inclined to entertain the Appeal for reduction
of the compensation.
5. Consequently, the Appeal is dismissed.
6. The statutory amount of `25,000/- shall be released to the
Appellant Insurance Company.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
MAY 25, 2012
pst
