National Insurance Company Ltd vs Dharamveer And Ors
2014 Latest Caselaw 6468 Del

$~A-13,14,15,16,17,18
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                                                           Date of decision: 04.12.2014
+      MAC.APP. 397/2012
       NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD            ..... Appellant
                       Through Ms.Manjusha Wadhwa and Ms.Arpan
                               Wadhawan, Advocates
                versus
       DHARAMVEER AND ORS                        ..... Respondent
                       Through Mr.S.N.Parashar and Ms.Monika
                               Phartyal, Advocates for R-1

+      MAC.APP. 404/2012
       NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD            ..... Appellant
                       Through Ms.Manjusha Wadhwa and Ms.Arpan
                               Wadhawan, Advocates
                versus
       SUMIT SHARMA AND ORS                      ..... Respondent
                       Through Mr.S.N.Parashar and Ms.Monika
                               Phartyal, Advocates for R-1

+      MAC.APP. 405/2012
       NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD              ..... Appellant
                       Through Ms.Manjusha Wadhwa and Ms.Arpan
                               Wadhawan, Advocates
                versus
       KARAN SINGH AND ANR                 ..... Respondent
                       Through Mr.S.N.Parashar and Ms.Monika
                               Phartyal, Advocates for R-1

+      MAC.APP. 407/2012

       NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD      ..... Appellant
                    Through Ms.Manjusha Wadhwa and Ms.Arpan
                            Wadhawan, Advocates
               Versus




MAC APP. 397/2012, 404/2012. 405/2012, 407/2012, 408/2012 & 409/2012          Page 1 of 7
          PUNEET SHARMA AND ORS                                         ..... Respondent


                               Through         Mr.S.N.Parashar and Ms.Monika
                                               Phartyal, Advocates for R-1

+        MAC.APP. 408/2012
         NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD            ..... Appellant
                         Through Ms.Manjusha Wadhwa and Ms.Arpan
                                 Wadhawan, Advocates
                  versus
         SURESH KUMAR & ORS                        ..... Respondent
                         Through Mr.S.N.Parashar and Ms.Monika
                                 Phartyal, Advocates for R-1

+        MAC.APP. 409/2012
         NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD            ..... Appellant
                         Through Ms.Manjusha Wadhwa and Ms.Arpan
                                 Wadhawan, Advocates
                  versus
         VEENA SHARMA AND ORS                      ..... Respondent
                         Through Mr.S.N.Parashar and Ms.Monika
                                 Phartyal, Advocates for R-1


CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH

JAYANT NATH, J. (ORAL)

1. Mac.App.No.397/2012,Mac.App.No.404/2012,Mac.App.No.407/ 2012 and Mac.App.No.408/2012 pertain to compensation on account of injury suffered by the claimant. Mac.App.No.405/2012 and Mac.App.No.409/2012 pertain to death of the deceased in the motor accident and compensation claimed by the dependents.

2. The brief facts which led to filing of these claim petitions are that on 28.2.2009 Dharamveer was going to Gurgaon in his car and in front of Nitish Kunj, Rangpuri at National Highway 8. At around 1.00 am his car suddenly stopped. A car came from behind and hit his car. The car stopped and an altercation took place between Dharamveer and the occupants of the car. In the meantime three boys came in a TSR and attempted to settle the matter. All of a sudden the offending vehicle a Maruti Esteem came at a very high speed being driven by respondent no.3 in a rash and negligent manner and hit them all. Due to the forceful impact the claimants sustained multiple injuries and were removed to the hospital where Rajesh Kumar and Raj Kumar were declared brought dead

3. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal held that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle, respondent no. 3.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant seeks to impugn the findings recorded by the Tribunal holding that the esteem car is liable and that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the owner of the esteem car. It is urged that the claimants/deceased had no business to stand on the National Highway in the middle of the night. None of the vehicles which were standing had blinkers on. The accident hence occurred on account of their contributory negligence and appropriate deductions should be made. Reference in this regard is also made to the site plan and to the mechanical inspection report of the various vehicles placed on record. This submission is common to all the appeals.

5. It is further urged that the compensation awarded in the case of MAC.APP.Nos.405/2012 and 409/2012 pertaining to the death of Shri Raj

Kumar and Shri Rajesh Kumar respectively are also erroneous and on the higher side.

6. I may first see sequence of events that led to the accident. I may first look at the FIR. The FIR is based on the statement of Shri Dharamveer . He states that when his car reached in front of Nitish Kunj it suddenly stopped and did not run. At that stage another car came from behind and slightly touched the car of Dharamveer. It is further said that both the cars were parked on the side and tried to sort out the matter. In the meantime, three boys came in a TSR and joined the discussion. It is urged that all the six tried to sort out the issue at one side whereupon the offending esteem car which was being driven at a very fast speed in a wrong manner by respondent no.3/ Tejpal came and hit all those standing. The people were hit and fell in two different directions.

7. As per the evidence by way of affidavit of PW-7, he stated that he was the driver of the TSR (DL-1RK-8170), and had parked the same on the side of the road to drop the passengers. They then started to negotiate on a matter of minor accident which took place between two cars nos. being, DL- 4CM-4185 and HR-26-AK-3654 respectively. In the meantime, the offending vehicle, Maruti Esteem Car no. DL-2CAG-6006 had come from behind at a high speed in a very rash and negligent manner hit all the persons who were standing on that spot at that time including the Deponent.

8. Reference may also be had to the site plan prepared by the police on the site. The site plan shows that the cars were parked on the extreme side. It also shows the drain where Raj Kumar fell after being hit by the offending vehicle. The site plan also shows that the offending esteem car deviated from its main path and went to its extreme left and hit the

claimants/deceased.

9. In the light of the above facts and circumstances and from the evidence it is clear that the driver of the offending vehicle was driving the same in a very high speed. Further he drove the car off its main path and took it to the extreme left and hit the victims. There is no explanation for having done the same. I see no reason to interfere in the Award holding that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. The above is the only issue raised in MAC APP.404/2012, 405/2012, 407/2012 and 408/2012. These appeals are dismissed. All interim orders including order dated 09.01.2013 stands vacated. Compensation amount lying deposited be released to the claimants as directed by the Tribunal. Statutory amount deposited by the insurance company/appellant at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellant.

10. I will now deal with the issue of compensation as awarded in MAC.APP.405/2012 and 409/2012.

MAC.APP.405/2012

11. This pertains to the death of Shri Rajesh Kumar. The Tribunal has awarded a total compensation of Rs.12,40,000/- taking into account that the deceased Rajesh Kumar was 21 years old at the time of the accident. A multiplier of 13 was used though in the case of a bachelor this Court has held in several judgments that the multiplier applicable to the age of the deceased is to be used. Income of the deceased was assessed at Rs.15,000/- per month for calculating loss of dependency and hence loss of dependency was calculated at Rs.11,70,000/-.

12. The Tribunal relied upon the testimony of PW1, Karan father of the

deceased stating that the deceased was pursuing his BCA from Nirankari Baba Gurbachan Singh Memorial College at Sohna. He was a final year student and was offered a job of a manager at Rentech Designs India Pvt. Ltd. with a salary of Rs. 20,000/- per month for a period of a year which is placed on record as Ex.PW1/2.

13. In the light of the above computation the compensation awarded is just, fair and reasonable. In the light of the same there is no merit in the appeal.

14. Appeal is dismissed.

15. All interim orders including order dated 09.01.2013 stands vacated. Compensation amount lying deposited be released to the claimants proportionately as directed by the Tribunal. Statutory amount deposited by the insurance company/appellant at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellant.

MAC.APP.409/2012

16. The present appeal pertains to the death of Shri. Raj Kumar. The tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.11,26,600/- taking into account that the deceased Raj Kumar was a 12th class pass and 31 years old at the time of the accident working at a shop in Sohna. A multiplier of 16 was used. Income of the deceased was assessed at minimum wages for a matriculate i.e. Rs.4,382/- per month the relevant minimum wages at the time of the accident. Hence loss of dependency was calculated at Rs.9,46,600/-.

17. PW-1, Veena Sharma widow of the deceased in her evidence states that her husband was carrying out private work and has left behind 2 minor daughters and her mother-in-law. In my view, I see no reason to differ with

the award passed by the Tribunal as the deceased was the only earning member in the family.

18. In the light of the above computation the compensation awarded is just, fair and reasonable. In the light of the same there is no merit in the appeal.

19. Appeal is dismissed.

20. All interim orders including order dated 09.01.2013 stands vacated. Compensation amount lying deposited be released to the claimants proportionately as directed by the Tribunal. Statutory amount deposited by the insurance company/appellant at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellant.

JAYANT NATH, J.

DECEMBER 04, 2014 n/saransh