Delhi High Court
National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Sneh Chawla & Ors. on 3 September, 2013
Author: Suresh Kait
$~21
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on:3rd September, 2013
+ MAC.APP. 455/2011
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. A.K. Soni, Advocate.
Versus
SNEH CHAWLA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.A.S.Rawat, Advocate for
Respondent Nos.1 to4/Claimants.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
1. The present appeal is preferred against the impugned award dated
27.01.2013, whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded the compensation as
follows:-
"1. Loss of dependency : Rs.23,47,380/-
2. Loss of Consortium : Rs. 10,000/-
3. Loss of Love and affection : Rs. 10,000/-
4. Loss of Estate : Rs. 10,000/-
5. Funeral expenses : Rs. 10,000/-
------------------------------
Total Rs.23,87,380/-
-----------------------------"
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/Insurance
Company has argued that the learned Tribunal has relied upon the school
leaving certificate of the deceased Ex.PW1/4, which is only a photocopy and
wherein the date of birth of the deceased has been mentioned as 20.09.1970.
The respondents/claimants have placed on record the ration card also,
wherein the year of birth of the deceased has been shown as 1962.
3. He submitted that the school leaving certificate is not genuine which
has been produced by the claimants. Therefore, instead of relying upon the
school leaving certificate, the learned Tribunal should have considered the
age of the deceased as per the ration card.
4. Learned counsel further argued that the learned Tribunal has also
erred while relying upon the salary certificate Ex.PW1/3 and assessed the
income of the deceased as Rs.13,041/- per month. In the salary certificate,
no amount has been deducted, therefore, the income should have been
considered after deduction of the other allowances.
5. He further argued that the negligence was not proved, therefore, if the
driver of the offending vehicle was not found negligent, then the
appellant/Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation.
6. Last but not the least, learned counsel argued that the learned Tribunal
has erred in considering the age of the deceased on the basis of the school
leaving certificate; and accordingly granted 50% towards future prospects.
7. Brief facts of the case are that on 21.10.2009, at about 9.40 PM,
deceased while on his way to his house from his duty at Hindu Rao Hospital
on his motorcycle bearing No.DL-8S-AM-4664 was hit from behind by one
TATA Truck 407 bearing No.DL-1LG-3695 when he stopped his
motorcycle at the red light of Kundan Nagar Pulia. Because of this sudden
impact, deceased fell on the road and suffered fatal injuries. Appellant
No.2/Sh. Nitin Chawla, son of the deceased, who was following the
deceased on a two-wheeler scooter with his cousin brother apprehended the
driver of the aforesaid truck who was trying to run away from the spot. Both
of them were going to visit the office of deceased on the date of the accident
and were following his motorcycle from his office. Deceased was taken to
R.S. Grover Memorial Hospital, where he was declared brought dead.
8. Accordingly, FIR No. 263/09 was registered at P.S. Geeta Colony
under Sections 279/304A IPC against the driver of the offending truck.
9. Perusal of the records and evidence shows that the PW1, Nitin
Chawla, is the only witness examined by the respondents/claimants. In his
evidence by way of affidavit Ex.P1, he stated that the driver of the offending
truck has caused the accident by jumping the red light. This witness has
been cross-examined by the counsel for the owner and driver, however,
nothing has come on record to show that this witness was not the eye
witness of the accident. Moreover, the FIR has been registered at the
instance of PW1. I note, Ld. Tribunal rightly observed that the manner in
which the accident has happened is a direct example of res ipsa loquitur.
Thus, the negligence has been proved by the respondents/claimants.
10. The core issue raised in the instant appeal is that as per the ration card,
year of birth of the deceased is 1962; however, in the school leaving
certificate of the deceased, his date of birth is mentioned as 20.09.1970.
11. The deceased was working as a ward boy in Hindu Rao Hospital.The
identity card and the salary certificate of the deceased issued by Hindu Rao
Hospital have been exhibited as Ex. PW1/2 and Ex. PW1/3 respectively. As
per the identify card Ex. PW 1/2, on the date of issue, i.e., 03.09.2009, the
age of the deceased is mentioned as 39 years. The accident occurred on
21.10.2009. Thus, on the date of the accident, the deceased was 39 years of
age.
12. I note, the appellant/Insurance Company has neither filed any
document contrary to the above and nor examined any witness from the
school to rebut the factum of date of birth being mentioned in the school
leaving certificate as 20.09.1970.
13. As per the salary certificate Ex.PW 1/3, the deceased was drawing a
gross salary of Rs.13,041/- per month. Therefore, while relying upon the
case of Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. DTC & Anr. 2009 ACJ 1298, the learned
Tribunal has rightly considered the claim of the respondents/claimants.
14. As noted above, the age of the deceased, at the time of the accident
was 39 years, therefore, I do not find any error in granting 50% towards
future prospects by the learned Tribunal.
15. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any discrepancy in the
impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal.
16. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.
17. Vide order dated 23.05.2011, subject to the deposit of entire awarded
amount with upto date interest with the Registrar General of this Court,
execution of the impugned order was stayed. On such deposit being made,
50% of the awarded amount was released in favour of the respondent No.1
to 4/claimants. Therefore, the Registrar General of this Court is directed to
release the balance awarded amount alongwith upto date interest accrued
thereon in favour of the respondent Nos.1 to 4/claimant in terms of the
award dated 27.01.2011 passed by the learned Tribunal on taking necessary
steps by them.
18. The statutory amount shall be released in favour of the
appellant/Insurance Company.
SURESH KAIT, J.
SEPTEMBER 03, 2013
Sb/RS
