New India Assurance Co Ltd. vs Phoolo Devi & Ors
2014 Latest Caselaw 1894 Del

$~27
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                             Judgment delivered on: 15th April, 2014

+                                 MAC.APP.No.377/2013


      NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD.                 ..... Appellant
                   Represented by: Mr. Sameer Nandwani,
                                   Advocate.

                           Versus

      PHOOLO DEVI & ORS                                      ..... Respondents
                   Represented by:              Mr.N.K.Jha, Advocate for
                                                Respondent Nos.1 to 5.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT

SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)

1. The present appeal is preferred against the impugned award dated 13.02.2013, whereby the learned Tribunal has granted compensation for an amount of Rs.17,01,591/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization of the amount.

2. Mr.Sameer Nandwani, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/Insurance Company submits that the claimants have failed to prove that the deceased was engaged permanently in some employment and was earning some amount. Thus, the learned Tribunal keeping in mind the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, assessed the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.7,826/- applicable to a skilled person at the relevant time.

3. Learned counsel submits that the learned Tribunal has added 30% in the actual income of the deceased towards future prospects contrary to Sarla Verma Vs. DTC and Ors. 2009 (6) SCC 121, which has been further affirmed by the Full Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Reshma Kumari & Ors. Vs. Madan Mohan & Anr. delivered in Civil Appeal No. 4646 of 2009 on 02.04.2013.

4. Learned counsel further submits that the compensation granted on account of non-pecuniary losses, such as Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of love and affection and Rs.25,000/- for loss of gratuitous services is on higher side.

5. He also submits that the rate of interest, i.e., 9% per annum awarded by the learned Tribunal on the compensation is also on higher side.

6. As far as the issue of future prospects is concerned, this Court has dealt with the same in the case bearing MAC. APP. No.846/2011 titled as ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Angrej Singh & Ors., decided on 30.09.2013, while relying upon the case of Rajesh and Ors. Vs. Rajbir Singh and Ors. 2013 (6) SCALE 563.

7. Admittedly, age of the deceased on the date of the accident was 28 years and learned Tribunal has added 30% in his actual income towards future prospects.

8. It is pertinent to note that the claimants have not filed any cross- appeal and challenged the future prospects, however, the Appellate Court has to see whether the compensation granted by the Tribunal is just and fair.

9. Therefore, keeping in mind the view taken by this Court in Angrej Singh (supra) and the age of the deceased, i.e., 28 years on the date of the accident, I add 50% in the actual income of the deceased towards future prospects.

10. So far as the issue of non-pecuniary damages is concerned, the deceased died at the young age of 28 years, he was earning Rs.10,000/- per month on the date of the accident as claimed by the claimants. He left behind young widow, two minor children and parents. Thus, due to sudden demise of the deceased, respondent No.1/wife lost the association of her husband and enjoyment of life, respondent No.2/minor son has lost the love, affection, care and guidance of his father, respondent No.3/a baby of 3 ½ months old in the womb (born posthumously) is deprived of even seeing the father. The parents have also lost the love, affection and support in their old age.

11. In view of the facts noted above, I find no merit in the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company on this issue.

12. As far as the issue of interest at the rate of 9% per annum awarded by the learned Tribunal being on higher side is concerned, I feel that the rate of

interest awarded by the learned Tribunal is just and fair and requires no interference as no rate of interest is fixed under Section 171 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Interest is compensation for forbearance or detention of money and that interest is awarded to a party only for being kept out of the money, which ought to have been paid to him. Time and again the Apex Court has held that the rate of interest to be awarded should be just and fair depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case and taking into consideration relevant factors including inflation, change of economy, policy being adopted by the Reserve Bank of India from time to time and other economic factors.

13. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case in hand as recorded in Para 12 above, I do not find any infirmity in the award regarding grant of interest at the rate of 9% per annum, accordingly the same is not interfered with.

14. Consequently, on adding 50% in the actual income of the deceased, the loss of dependency comes to Rs.17,96,067/-.

15. Hence, the enhanced compensation comes to Rs.2,39,476/- (Rs.17,96,067/- - Rs.15,56,591/-)

16. The enhanced compensation shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization of the amount.

17. Accordingly, the appellant/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation with proportionate interest with the Registrar General of this Court within a period of five weeks from today, failing which, respondents/claimants shall be entitled for penal interest at the rate of 12% per annum on account of delayed payment.

18. On deposit, the Registrar General is directed to release the balance compensation including the enhanced compensation in favour of the respondents/claimants in equal proportion on taking necessary steps by them.

19. The statutory amount shall be released in favour of the appellant/Insurance Company thereafter.

20. In view of the above, the appeal is disposed of.

SURESH KAIT, J.

APRIL 15, 2014 Sb/jg