Delhi High Court
Bharti Axa General Insruance ... vs Hakiman & Ors. on 26 March, 2014
Author: Suresh Kait
$~26
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 26th March, 2014
+ MAC.APP. 294/2013
BHARTI AXA GENERAL INSRUANCE COMPANY
LTD. ..... Appellant
Represented by: Ms. Suman Bagga, Adv.
versus
HAKIMAN & ORS. ..... Respondents
Represented by: Mr. S.N. Parashar, Adv. for
R1 and R2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
1. The present appeal has been preferred against the impugned award
dated 23.01.2013, whereby ld. Tribunal while awarding the compensation
has applied multiplier of 18 as per the age of the deceased while relying
upon the dictum of Amrit Bhanushali v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. 2012
(6) SCALE 1.
2. 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 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."
3. Admittedly, age of the deceased was 18 years on the date of the
accident and taking note of the same, the learned Tribunal has appropriately
applied the multiplier of 18.
4. 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.
5. Consequently, the Registry of this Court is directed to release the
statutory amount in favour of the appellant/Insurance Company and the
balance compensation in favour of the respondents/claimants in terms of the
award 23.01.2013 on taking necessary steps by them.
SURESH KAIT, J
MARCH 26, 2014
jg
