Delhi High Court
The Oriental Insurance Company ... vs Som Lata & Ors. on 5 October, 2012
Author: G.P. Mittal
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 5th October, 2012
+ MAC.APP. 1024/2011
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD....... Appellant
Through: Mr. J.P.N. Shahi, Adv.
versus
SOM LATA & ORS. ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Anshuman Bal, Adv. for R-1 & R-5
Ms. Anupma Kaul, Adv. for R-6 & R-7.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
JUDGMENT
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
1. The Appeal is for reduction of compensation of `10,46,400/- awarded by
the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) in favour of
Respondents No.1 to 5 for the death of Suresh Kumar who died in a
motor vehicle accident which occurred on 27.11.2009.
2. The following contentions are raised on behalf of the Appellant:-
(i) There was no evidence with regard to deceased's future prospects.
Even then, the Claims Tribunal made an addition of 50% towards
future prospects.
(ii) The compensation of `1,25,000/- towards loss of love and affection
is on the higher side and only a nominal sum is awarded towards
non-pecuniary damages in case of fatal accidents.
3. During inquiry before the Claims Tribunal it was claimed that the
deceased Suresh Kumar was in private service and was earning `8,000/-
per month. In the absence of any evidence with regard to Suresh Kumar's
employment or his income, the Claims Tribunal adopted the minimum
wages of unskilled worker to compute the loss of dependency. Since
there was no evidence that the deceased was doing a skilled job, it was
appropriate to take minimum wages of unskilled worker to compute the
loss of dependency. Admittedly, there was no evidence with regard to
decease's future prospects. The Claims Tribunal relied on Narender
Bishal & Anr. v. Ramit Singh & Ors., MAC APP.1007-08/2006 decided
on 20.02.2008 and granted 50% increase on account of inflation.
4. In the absence of any evidence with regard to deceased's future prospects
addition of 50% was not justified, rather there could be an addition of
30% on the basis of latest report of the Supreme Court in Santosh Devi v.
National Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors., 2012 (4) SCALE 559;
5. The loss of dependency thus comes to `6,93,751/- (3953/- + 30% x ¾ x
12 x 15).
6. The Claims Tribunal awarded a compensation of `1,25,000/- towards loss
of love and affection. Loss of love and affection can never be measured in
terms of money. When full compensation is awarded towards loss of
dependency, only a nominal sum is awarded towards loss of love and
affection. 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
`1,25,000/- to ` 25,000/- only.
7. On making further addition of `10,000/- each towards loss of estate, loss
of consortium and funeral expenses, the overall compensation comes to
`7,48,751/- as against `10,46,000/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal.
8. Thus there is reduction of `2,97,249/- in the compensation award.
9. The excess amount of `2,97,249/- along with proportionate interest and
the interest accrued, if any, during the pendency of the Appeal shall be
refunded to the Appellant Insurance Company.
10. The compensation awarded shall be released/held in fixed deposit in
favour of Respondents No.1 to 5 (the Claimants) in terms of the order
passed by the Claims Tribunal.
11. The statutory deposit of `25,000/- be refunded to the Appellant Insurance
Company.
12. The Appeal is allowed in above terms.
13. Pending Applications also stand disposed of.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
OCTOBER 05, 2012
vk
