Delhi High Court
The United India Insurance Co. ... vs Smt. Shanta & Ors. on 12 September, 2013
Author: Suresh Kait
$~15
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 12th September, 2013
+ MAC.A. 609/2012
THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. ......Appellant
Through: Mr. S.K.Ray and Mr.Amitava
Poddar, Advocates.
Versus
SMT. SHANTA & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Nitin Joshi, Advocate for
Respondent Nos. 1 to 4.
Mr. Pushp Saini, Advocate for
Respondent No.5.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J.
1. Vide the present appeal, the appellant/Insurance Company is
assailing the judgement dated 02.03.2012, whereby the learned
Tribunal has granted a sum of Rs.8,51,528/- as compensation with
interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the
petition till realization in favour of the respondents/claimants.
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/Insurance
Company has argued that, the deceased Sumit Kumar was a young boy
of 19 years at the date of accident, i.e., 19.11.2009, who left behind his
widowed mother and three sisters. He submitted that the learned
Tribunal while granting compensation has deducted only 1/3rd towards
personal expenses of the deceased, whereas in a case of bachelor, half
of the income should have been deducted towards the same.
3. Learned counsel further submitted that, admittedly unmarried
sisters were dependent upon the deceased but widowed mother was not
dependent upon him as she was working with MCD on daily wages.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to
4/claimants while refuting the same has submitted that the widowed
mother of the deceased was a daily wager and not in permanent job,
therefore, she cannot be treated as self employed. Moreover, at the
time of the accident, all three sisters were unmarried and two of them
have been married after the deceased suffered fatal injuries in the
accident in question. Therefore, the relevant fact has been taken by the
learned Tribunal while deducting 1/3rd of the income of the deceased
towards personal expenses.
5. In my considered view, deduction on account of personal
expenses has to be considered keeping in view the dependents left
behind. In the present case, father of the deceased was pre-deceased to
him; and the dependants are mother who is a daily wager and three
unmarried sisters: having high hopes upon him, which shattered with
his sudden demise in the motor vehicle accident which occurred on
19.11.2009. Therefore, the learned Tribunal has rightly deducted 1/3 rd
of the income of the deceased towards personal expenses.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company has
argued that though the learned Tribunal has considered the income of
the deceased as Rs,4,146/- on the basis of the minimum wages
applicable to a non-matriculate at that time, despite that added 50%
towards future prospects. However, in view of Sarla Verma Vs. DTC
and Ors. 2009 (6) SCC 121, the learned Tribunal ought to have
considered 30% towards future prospects instead of 50%.
7. Keeping in view the judgement rendered by the Apex Court
recently in Rajesh and Ors.Vs. Rajbir Singh and Ors. 2013 (6) Scale
563, this issue is no more res integra, therefore, keeping in view the
age of the deceased, i.e., 19 years, I do not find any discrepancy in the
impugned order of the learned Tribunal granting 50% towards future
prospects.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company has
argued that the deceased was going on his motorcycle with two other
friends and therefore, contributory negligence on the part of the
deceased can be assessed.
9. Admitted fact is that, the police has registered a case being FIR
No.455/09, P.S. Nangloi, under Sections 279/338 IPC, investigated the
same and thereafter filed the charge sheet against the respondent
No.5/driver and owner of the offending vehicle. Moreover, there is no
material in the charge sheet alleging that the deceased was at fault and
had violated any rules and regulations of the Traffic or there was any
breach of terms of the insurance policy. Therefore, on this issue, I do
not find any ambiguity with respect to the finding of the ld. Tribunal
qua negligence.
10. Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company has
further drawn the attention of this Court towards the funeral expenses
of Rs.50,000/- granted by the learned Tribunal, which is contrary to the
settled law.
11. Learned counsel for the respondents/claimants has submitted
that keeping in view the dictum of Rajesh and Ors. (supra), the
maximum amount of Rs.25,000/- can be granted on this count.
12. I order accordingly.
13. Therefore, keeping in view the settled law discussed above, an
amount of Rs.25,000/- is reduced from the total compensation amount,
i.e., Rs.8,51,528/- awarded by the learned Tribunal vide impugned
order dated 02.03.2012.
14. Vide order dated 28.05.2012, while granting stay, this Court
directed the appellant/Insurance Company to deposit the awarded
amount along with upto date interest with UCO Bank, High Court of
Delhi, New Delhi. On deposit, 50% of the awarded amount was
released in favour of the respondents/claimants.
15. Accordingly, Branch Manager, UCO Bank, High Court of Delhi,
New Delhi is directed to deduct the aforesaid sum of Rs.25,000/- with
proportionate interest accrued thereon from the balance award amount
and rest of the compensation amount shall be released in favour of the
respondents/claimants in terms of order dated 02.03.2012 on taking
necessary steps by them.
16. The Registry of this Court is directed to release the statutory
amount in favour of the appellant/Insurance Company.
17. In view of the above, the instant appeal is partially allowed.
SURESH KAIT, J.
SEPTEMBER 12, 2013
sb/jg
