Delhi High Court
Reliance General Insurance ... vs Smt. Kusum & Ors. on 21 April, 2014
Author: Suresh Kait
$~8
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 21st April, 2014
+ MAC.APP. No.352/2014
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY.... Appellant
Represented by: Ms. Neerja Sachdeva, Advocate.
Versus
SMT. KUSUM & ORS. ....Respondents
Represented by: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J.
CM No.6640/2014 (for exemption)
Exemptions allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
The application stands disposed of.
+ MAC.APP. No.352/2014
1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant/Insurance
Company challenging the impugned award dated 03.03.2014 on the sole
ground that while awarding the compensation for loss of dependency, the
learned Tribunal has adopted the multiplier of 18 keeping in mind the
age of the deceased, i.e., 24 years, whereas as per the settled law,
multiplier as per the age of the parents should have been applied.
2. To strengthen her arguments, learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the appellant has relied upon the case of National Insurance
Company Limited Vs. Shyam Singh & Ors., (2011) 7 SCC 65.
3. The issue of multiplier has been dealt with by this Court in the
case of Mohd. Hasnain & Ors. Vs. Jagram Meena & Ors. bearing
MAC. APP. No. 152/2014, decided on 24.03.2014, wherein case of
Shyam Singh (Supra) has also been considered and held as under:-
"21. The maximum value of the multiplier is fixed at „18‟,
which is fairly representing the purchasing capacity of a
victim in a stable economy. In the ascertainment of
purchasing capacity of the victim, the age of the claimant has
no relevance because of the fact that it has no nexus with the
assessment of the loss of dependency.
22. Moreover, subsequent to the introduction of Section
163A and the Second Schedule of the Act, the Apex Court in
Trilok Chandra, introduced a structural change by increasing
the numerical value of multiplier from „16‟to„18‟, whereas it
had been fixed at „16‟as per Susamma Thomas. Specifically,
there was no variation in respect of fundamental premise of
„multiplier method‟ as held in Susamma Thomas. In Trilok
Chandra, the apex court has taken the second schedule as a
guiding factor.
23. Significantly, the Apex Court in the case of Reshma
Kumari and M. Nag Pal has followed the age of the victim as
a factor for selecting the multiplier. Specifically, in the
selection of multiplier for the age group up to ‟15‟ the Apex
Court never considered the age of the claimants as a relevant
factor. Therefore, this court finds no reason to adopt a
different formula for the victim who is above „15‟ years of age,
whereas the relevant factors have been adopted by the Apex
Court such as (i) age of the deceased (ii) income of the
deceased and (iii) number of dependents. The Apex Court,
while formulating the relevant factors for the assessment of
loss of dependency, the age of the claimants never considered
as a factor. Finally, in the assessment of dependency, the
courts / tribunals are computing the purchasing capacity of the
deceased; not the claimants. Therefore, I am of the considered
opinion that the age of the victim is the proper factor for
selecting the correct multiplier."
4. Admittedly, in the present case, age of the deceased was 24 years,
he was unmarried and the claim petition was filed by his parents.
5. Therefore, keeping in mind the view taken by this Court in the
aforenoted case and the facts and circumstances of this case, I find no
merit in the instant appeal. The same is accordingly dismissed.
6. Consequently, the Registry of this Court is directed to release the
statutory amount in favour of the appellant/Insurance Company.
CM. NO. 6639/2014 (for Stay)
With the dismissal of the instant appeal itself, instant application
has become infructuous and dismissed as such.
SURESH KAIT, J.
APRIL 21, 2014
Sb/jg
