National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Usha Devi Sharma & Ors
2012 Latest Caselaw 5239 Del

*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                         Decided on: 3rd September, 2012
+       MAC.APP. 515/2004

        NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
                                                         ..... Appellant
                              Through:   Mr.Joy Basu, Advocate
                     versus

        USHA DEVI SHARMA & ORS.                         ..... Respondents
                     Through: None.

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

                              JUDGMENT

G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)

1. The Appeal is for reduction of compensation of Rs.25,78,680/-

awarded for the death of Rajneesh Prakash Sharma, who died in an accident which occurred on 22.10.2002.

2. The only ground of challenge in the Appeal is that the Appellants were not entitled to any addition on account of future prospects.

3. The deceased was aged 44 years and was in permanent employment with Canara bank. The Claims Tribunal accepted his salary as `14176/-, added 50% towards future prospects, 50% was deducted towards personal expenses and applied the multiplier of 15 to compute the loss of dependency. As per Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr,

(2009) 6 SCC 121 the addition towards future prospects would be 30% and deduction would be 1/4th instead of 1/3 as made by the Claims Tribunal. The loss of dependency would thus come to `24,87,888/- (`14176x12+30%x1/4x15). On adding a sum of `25,000/- towards loss of Love and Affection and `10,000/- each towards Loss of Consortium, Loss to Estate and Funeral Expenses, the overall compensation comes to `25,42,888/- as against an award of `25,76,680/-.

4. In the circumstances, the compensation awarded cannot be said to be exorbitant and excessive. Thus the Appeal has to fail; the same is accordingly dismissed.

5. Statutory amount of `25,000/-be refunded to the Appellant.

6. The amount deposited shall be disbursed in favour of Respondents No. 1 to 4 in terms of the order passed by the Claims Tribunal.

7. Pending applications also stand disposed of.

(G.P. MITTAL) JUDGE SEPTEMBER 03, 2012 mr