Delhi High Court
Tata Aig General Insurance ... vs Smt. Shoshi Devi & Ors on 18 October, 2012
Author: G.P. Mittal
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 18th October, 2012
+ MAC.APP. 187/2012
TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD...... Appellant
Through Mr. Sameer Nandwani, Adv.
versus
SMT. SHOSHI DEVI & ORS ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Dilip Singh, Adv for R-1 to R-7.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
JUDGMENT
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
1. The learned counsel for the Appellant states that there is no dispute with
regard to Appellant's liability as there is no breach of the terms and
conditions of the policy. His request for dispensing with service of
Respondent No.8, who was the driver of the offending vehicle is allowed.
2. The Appeal is for reduction of compensation of `9,05,784/- awarded for
the death of Sanjay Kumar @ Sanjeev Kumar who was died in a motor
vehicle accident which occurred on 26.12.2008.
3. The Appellant Insurance Company does not challenge the finding on
negligence; the same, therefore, has attained finality.
4. During inquiry before the Claims Tribunal it was claimed that the
deceased was working as a Labour Supervisor in M/s. Nitco Roadways
Pvt. Ltd., DBG Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi and was earning `12,000/-
per month. The Claimants failed to prove any salary certificate or
examine any witness from the employer to prove the employment or the
salary of the deceased.
5. The Claims Tribunal took the minimum wages of a skilled worker; added
50% towards inflation; deducted one-fourth towards personal and living
expenses (as the number of dependents were six); applied the multiplier
of 17 as per the age of the deceased to compute the loss of dependency as
`8,45,784/-. The Claims Tribunal further awarded a sum of `60,000/-
towards non pecuniary damages.
6. It is urged by the learned counsel for the Appellant that there was no
evidence with regard to deceased's future prospects. Thus, only an
addition of 30% could have been made on account of inflation.
7. On the other hand, it is stated by the learned counsel for the Claimants
that the compensation awarded is just and reasonable.
8. I am in agreement with the learned counsel for the Appellant that in the
absence of any evidence with regard to future prospects only an addition
of 30% towards inflation should have been made in the deceased's
income on the basis of the ratio in Santosh Devi v. National Insurance
Company Ltd. & Ors., 2012 (4) SCALE 559.
9. The loss of dependency thus comes to `7,32,548/- (3683/- + 30% x 3/4 x
12 x 17).
10. On adding a sum of `60,000/- towards non pecuniary damages, as
awarded by the Claims Tribunal, the overall compensation comes to
`7,92,548/- as against 9,05,784/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal.
11. The excess amount of `1,13,236/- along with proportionate interest and
the interest accrued, if any, during the pendency of the Appeal shall be
refunded to the Appellant Insurance Company.
12. The compensation awarded to the Claimants shall be disbursed/held in
fixed deposit in terms of the order passed by the Claims Tribunal.
13. The statutory deposit of `25,000/- be refunded to the Appellant Insurance
Company.
14. The Appeal is allowed in above terms.
15. Pending Applications also stand disposed of.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
OCTOBER 18, 2012
vk
