Delhi High Court
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Hasan Raja & Ors on 18 September, 2012
Author: G.P. Mittal
$~24
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 18th September, 2012
+ MAC.APP. 1115/2011
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. ..... Appellant
Through Mr. Tarkeshwar Nath, Adv.
Mr. Saurabh Kumar Tuteja, Adv.
versus
HASAN RAJA & ORS ..... Respondents
Through Mr. A.K.Nigam, Proxy Counsel for
Mr. J.S.Kanwar, Adv. for R-1 and R-2
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
JUDGMENT
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
C.M. APPL No.22385/2012(Delay)
There is a delay of 1844 days in filing the Appeal.
The delay in filing the Appeal is condoned in view of the order dated 12 th
October, 2011 passed in CM (M) 1520/2006 and CM No.12981/2006.
The Application stands disposed of.
MAC APP.1115/2011
1. The Appeal is for reduction of compensation of `5,92,936/- awarded by the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) in favour of
Respondents No.1 and 2, the parents of the deceased Sayeed Ahmad, who
died in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 06-07.01.2004.
2. There is twin challenge to the judgment. It is urged that there should have
been a deduction of one-third towards personal and living expenses, but the
Claims Tribunal did not make any deduction towards personal and living
expenses of the deceased. It is stated that in case of death of a bachelor the
multiplier has to be as per the age of the deceased. Reliance is placed on
Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr'., (2009) 6 SCC
121.
3. The deceased Sayeed Ahmad was working as a Waiter in a tea stall. It was
claimed that he was earning to `4,500/- per month. In the absence of any
cogent evidence with regard to the deceased's income, the Claims Tribunal
took the assistance of Minimum Wages for unskilled worker fixed by the
Govt. of NCT of Delhi under the Minimum Wages Act to compute the loss
of dependency.
4. Normally, in the case of death of a bachelor 50% deduction is made towards
personal and living expenses, although, the Appellant Insurance Company
says that there should have been deduction of one-third towards personal and
living expenses. The Minimum Wages of unskilled worker as held by the
Claims Tribunal at the relevant time were `2,784/-. If a Claim Petition is
filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988 (the Act) and
compensation is awarded strictly in accordance with the Second Schedule,
the loss of dependency would come to `3,78,624/-(2784 x 2/3 x 12 x 17).
5. A sum of `4,500/-shall be payable towards non-pecuniary damages. Thus,
the total compensation in a Petition under Section 163-A of the Act, where
the Claimants are not even required to be prove the negligence, would come
to `3,83,124/-.
6. In a Claim Petition under Section 166 of the Act, the Claimants would be
entitled to an addition of 30% towards inflation on the basis of Santosh Devi
v. National Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors., 2012 (4) SCALE 559' and the
appropriate multiplier at the age of 60 would be 9, if deduction of 1/3
towards personal and living expenses is made, the loss of dependency would
come to `2,60,582/- (2784 + 30% x 2/3 x 12 x 9). On addition of `25,000/-
towards love and affection and `10,000/- each towards funeral expenses and
loss to estate is paid, the compensation comes to `3,05,582/-.
7. Section 168 of the Act envisages payment of compensation which is just and
reasonable. In the circumstances stated hereinabove, Respondents No.1, 2
and 3 were entitled to a maximum compensation of `3,83,124/-.
8. Thus, it is clear that the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal was
on the higher side. It stands reduced to `3,83,124/-.
9. The Claimants would be entitled to interest @ 7.5% per annum on the
awarded amount from the date of filing of the Petition till its deposit. The
Claimants shall also be entitled to interest accrued during the pendency of
CM (Main) No.1520/2006 and MAC APP.1115/2011 on the amount falling
in their share including interim compensation.
10. Compensation awarded shall be paid to Respondents No.1 and 2 in terms of
the order passed by the Claims Tribunal.
11. By order dated 20.11.2006 passed in CM(M) 1520/2006, the Appellant
Insurance Company was directed to pay to the Respondents No.1 and 2 a
sum of `1,62,212.50P. As per the statement made in the Court by Mr.
Tarkeshwar Nath, learned counsel for the Appellant Insurance Company on
17.07.2008, the said amount was duly paid to the Respondents No.1 and 2
before the Executing Court.
12. Fifty percent of the award amount was also directed to be deposited by an
order dated 13th December, 2011 which stands already deposited. In
pursuance of this order an amount of `3,60,599/- was deposited by the
Appellant Insurance Company.
13. After adjusting the above said amount, the balance compensation shall be
paid to Respondents No.1 and 2 in equal share.
14. The Appellant Insurance Company has already paid/deposited a total sum of
`4,68,811/- (`1,62,212/- + `3,60,599/-). The Registry shall calculate the
amount of interest payable. If there is any short fall it shall be deposited
with the Registrar General of this Court within six weeks of the date fixed
before the Registrar. If the amount is in excess, it shall be refunded to the
Appellant Insurance Company.
15. The amount of compensation awarded shall be released in favour of
Respondents No.1 and 2 in equal shares.
16. The Appeal is allowed in above terms.
17. Pending Applications stand disposed of.
18. List before the Registrar on 26th September, 2012.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
SEPTEMBER 18, 2012
v
