Delhi High Court
National Insurance Co Ltd vs Smt Bhoo Devi & Ors on 30 May, 2012
Author: G.P. Mittal
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 30th May, 2012
+ MAC.APP. 338/2012
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD ..... Appellant
Through: Ms. Shantha Devi Raman,
Advocate
versus
SMT BHOO DEVI & ORS ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. S.N. Parashar, Advocate
Mr. Abhay N. Das, Advocate
for DTC.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
JUDGMENT
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
1. Respondent No. 3 and Respondent No.5 (Manoj Kumar and
M/s. Today Footwears Pvt. Ltd.) have not been served. It is,
however, stated by the learned counsel for the Appellant that
both the vehicles involved in the accident were insured with
National Insurance Company.
2. There is no breach of the policy condition and the Appellant
Insurance Company has challenged only the quantum of
compensation. In the circumstances, service of Respondents
No.3 and 5 is dispensed with.
3. The Appeal is taken for final disposal.
4. The Appeal is for reduction of compensation of `6,53,350/-
awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims
Tribunal) for the death of Rakesh Kumar who died in a motor
accident which occurred on 09.07.2006.
5. Following contentions are raised on behalf of the Appellant
Insurance Company:-
(i) There was no evidence of future prospects, in spite of
this, the Claims Tribunal added 50% towards the future
prospects.
(ii) The income of `3,500/- per month was considered which
was from the scrap business in addition to his job as a
helper with M/s. AIR Grip Footwear Pvt. Ltd. which was
not justified, and
(iii) The compensation of `50,000/- awarded towards loss of
love and affection is on the higher side.
6. On the date of the accident deceased Rakesh Kumar was a
bachelor aged about 29 years. He was working as a helper with
M/s. AIR Grip Footwear Pvt. Ltd. and was getting a salary of
`2450/- per month. PW-4 Subhash Chand, Director of M/s.
AIR Grip Foot Wear Pvt. Ltd testified that the deceased was a
permanent employee and as per the company's policy, every
permanent employee including the deceased was being given an
increase of 10% every year.
7. The Claims Tribunal rightly applied the ratio of Sarla Verma
(Smt.) & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6
SCC 121 in making an addition of 50% towards the future
prospects considering the age of the deceased to be 29 years.
Thus, I do not find any error or infirmity in the grant of addition
on account of future prospects.
8. As far as income from the sale of scrap by the deceased Rakesh
Kumar is concerned, the Claims Tribunal held as under:-
"In order to prove scrap business done by deceased and
earning of `3500/- per month from the said business, the
petitioner has examined PW-5 Anil Goyal, proprietor of
Shivam Plastic. PW-5 has deposed that Rakesh Kumar
S/o Prem Singh who expired in a road accident on
9.7.2006 used to sell old PVC scrap, Rexine scrap,
cutting scrap and all kinds of Plastics scraps to their firm
and average amount of the above mentioned scrap
purchased by their firm and average amount of the above
mentioned scrap purchased by their firm was `12,000/-
per month and estimate amount of income to the
deceased from the said business was `3500/- to 4000/-
per month. He further deposed that deceased was
permanent supplier and he has issued certificate in this
regard which is Ex.PW1/5. He further deposed that
purchasing of old scrap from deceased Rakesh Kumar
and payment given to him shown in the income tax books
of the firm. He has further proved copies of ledger
account for the year 2005-2006 and 2006-2007 Ex.PW-
5/5 and Ex.PW-5/6 respectively."
9. Thus, the Claims Tribunal found sufficient evidence with regard
to the deceased supplying scrap to PW-5 which was established
from PW-3's testimony as well as from the copies of ledger
account for the year 2005-06 and 2006-07 Ex.PW-5/5 and
Ex.PW-5/6 respectively. No addition on account of future
prospects was given on this income from scrap business. The
award of the Claims Tribunal for a sum of `5,59,650/- on
account of loss of dependency was well reasoned and justified.
10. The Claims Tribunal awarded a sum of `50,000/- towards loss
of love and affection. 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 only ` 25,000/-
(in total to all the claimants) under the head of loss of love and
affection. Thus, I would reduce the compensation under this
head from `50,000/- to ` 25,000/- only.
11. In view of the above discussion, there is overall reduction of
`25,000/- in the compensation.
12. The overall compensation stands reduced from `6,53,350/- to `
6,28/,350/- (including the interim compensation of `50,000/-)
which shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of
filing of the Petition till its deposit.
13. The excess amount of `25,000/- along with interest and the
interest accrued, if any, during the pendency of the Appeal shall
be refunded to the Appellant Insurance Company.
14. The compensation payable to Respondent No.1 Bhoo Devi,
mother of the deceased would reduced to `25,000/-.
15. The statutory amount of `25,000/- be refunded to the Appellant
Insurance Company.
16. The Appeal is allowed in above terms.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
MAY 30, 2012
vk
