Royal Sundaram Alliance ... vs Naushad Mandal & Ors.
2012 Latest Caselaw 5590 Del

*        IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                           Date of decision: 17th September, 2012
+        MAC.APP. 643/2010

         ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.
                                                    ...... Appellant
                     Through: Ms. Suman Bagga, Adv.

                     versus

         NAUSHAD MANDAL & ORS.             ..... Respondents
                    Through: Mr. Munish Tyagi, Adv.

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

                                JUDGMENT

G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)

1. The Appeal is for reduction of compensation of `9,69,000/- awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) in favour of Respondents No.1 to 3 for the death of Smt. Manobra who died in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 27.04.2009.

2. On appreciation of evidence, the Claims Tribunal found that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving of Tata 407 No.HR- 55-GT-3632.

3. During inquiry before the Claims Tribunal it was claimed that the deceased was working as a domestic help (maid servant) and was earning `7,000/- per month. In the absence of any cogent evidence with regard to the deceased's income, the Claims Tribunal took the minimum wages of an unskilled worker, deducted one-third towards personal and living

expenses and applied the multiplier of 18 to compute the loss of dependency as `8,64,000/-. On adding further a sum of `1,05,000/- towards non-pecuniary damages, the overall compensation of `9,69,000/- was awarded.

4. The finding on negligence is not disputed by the Appellant Insurance Company.

5. The following contentions are raised on behalf of the Appellant:-

(i) In the absence of any evidence with regard to the deceased's future prospects, the Claims Tribunal erred in making an addition of 50% towards the future prospects.

(ii) The compensation of `75,000/- awarded towards loss of love and affection is on the higher side.

6. The Appeal must succeed on both the grounds.

7. It is well settled that an addition on account of future prospects can be made only when there is evidence with regard to the same. (Sarla Verma (Smt.) & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121 and Bijoy Kumar Dugar v. Bidyadhar Dutta & Ors., AIR 2006 SC 1255).

8. This Court in Rakhi v. Satish Kumar & Ors. (MAC. APP. 390/2011) decided on 16.07.2012, referred to the reports of the Supreme Court in General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum v. Susamma Thomas (Mrs.) and Ors. (1994) 2 SCC 176, Sarla Dixit v. Balwant Yadav, (1996) 3 SCC 179, Bijoy Kumar Dugar v. Bidya Dhar Dutta & Ors, (2006) 3 SCC 242, Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr, (2009) 6 SCC 121 and Santosh Devi

v. National Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors., 2012 (4) SCALE 559 and held that Santosh Devi provided for an increase of 30% towards inflation in the victims income in case of self employed persons and persons having fixed income.

9. Thus, the Respondents No.1 to 3 were entitled to an addition of 30% instead of 50% as granted by the Claims Tribunal. The loss of dependency thus comes to `7,48,799/- (4,000/- + 30% x 2/3 x 12 x 18) as against a sum of `8,64,000/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal.

10. The Claims Tribunal awarded a sum of `75,000/- 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 to ` 25,000/- only.

11. In addition, the Respondents No.1 to 3 are further entitled to a sum of `10,000/- each towards loss of consortium, loss to estate and funeral expenses.

12. The overall compensation comes to `8,03,799/- as against `9,69,000/-

awarded by the Claims Tribunal.

13. Thus there is reduction of `1,65,201/- in the compensation award. The excess amount of `1,65,201/- along with proportionate interest and the

interest accrued, if any, during the pendency of the Appeal shall be refunded to the Appellant Insurance Company.

14. By an order dated 29.09.2010, 75% of the award amount was ordered to be released in favour of Respondents No.1 to 3 in terms of the impugned judgment. After refunding the excess amount, the balance amount payable to Respondents No.1 to 3 shall be released/held in fixed deposit in terms of the order passed by the Claims Tribunal.

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

16. The Appeal is allowed in above terms.

17. Pending Applications also stand disposed of.

(G.P. MITTAL) JUDGE SEPTEMBER 17, 2012 vk