Icici Lombard General Insurance ... vs Manju & Ors.
2012 Latest Caselaw 5911 Del

*        IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                                 Date of decision: 1st October, 2012
+        MAC.APP. 754/2012

         ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD...... Appellant
                       Through: Ms. Suman Bagga, Adv.

                       versus


         MANJU & ORS.                                  ..... Respondents
                                Through:   Mr. Nitin Yadav, Adv. for R-1 to R-4.

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

                                    JUDGMENT

G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)

CM APPL.12194 /2012(Delay) The delay of 60 days in filing the Appeal is condoned.

The Application is allowed.

MAC.APP. 754/2012

1. The Appeal is for reduction of compensation of `8,32,136/- awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) for the death of Rajeev who died in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 08.08.2008.

2. It is urged by the learned counsel for the Appellant that the Claimants had preferred a Petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act) and thus, the compensation should have been awarded only on

the basis of the structured formula where there is a cap of income of `40,000/- per annum.

3. The learned counsel for the Respondents (the Claimants) agree that the compensation has to be awarded only as per the structured formula.

4. This Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Pitamber & Ors., MAC APP.304/2009; Pitamber & Ors. v. Nirdosh Kumar & Anr.. MAC.APP. 345/2009 both decided on 23.01.2012 and Jagdish & Anr. v. Madhav Raj Mishra and Anr. MAC APP.190/2011 decided on 19.04.2011; while relying on Deepal Girishbhai Soni v. United India Insurance Company Limited, (2004) 5 SCC 385 and Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Meena Variyal (2007) 5 SCC 428, held that in a Claim Petition under Section 163-A of the M.V. Act, the compensation has to be awarded on the basis of the structured formula.

5. Applying the above ratio, the loss of dependency comes to `4,53,333/-

(40,000/- x 2/3 x 17).

6. In addition, the Claimants would be entitled to a compensation of `9,500/- under non pecuniary heads. (i.e. `2,500/- towards loss to estate, `5,000/- towards loss of consortium and `2,000/- towards funeral expenses).

7. The overall compensation thus comes to `4,62,833/- as against `8,32,136/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal.

8. The excess compensation of `3,69,303/- along with proportionate interest and the interest accrued, if any, during the pendency of the Appeal shall be refunded to the Appellant Insurance Company.

9. The compensation awarded shall be disbursed in favour of the Claimants in terms of the order passed by the Claims Tribunal.

10. The statutory deposit of `25,000/- be refunded to the Appellant Insurance Company.

11. The Appeal is allowed in above terms.

12. Pending Applications also stand disposed of.

(G.P. MITTAL) JUDGE OCTOBER 01, 2012 vk