Delhi High Court
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Smt. Sharda & Ors. on 27 March, 2014
Author: Suresh Kait
$~R-9A
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 27th March, 2014
+ MAC.APP.No.516/2006
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. ..... Appellant
Represented by: Mr. Pankaj Seth, Advocate.
Versus
SMT. SHARDA & ORS. .....Respondents
Represented by: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
+ MAC.APP.No.516/2006
1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant/Insurance
Company challenging the impugned award dated 16.03.2006, whereby
the learned Tribunal had granted compensation for an amount of
Rs.4,06,680/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of
filing of the petition till realization of the amount.
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/Insurance
Company submits that while calculating the loss of dependency, the
learned Tribunal had deducted one-third of the income of the deceased
towards personal expenses and keeping in mind the Second Schedule of
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, applied the multiplier of 16 as the age of
the deceased was 20 years on the date of the accident.
3. He further submits that at the time of the accident, the deceased
was aged 20 years. He was a bachelor, and parents were dependent upon
him. Therefore, keeping in view the settled law, one-half should have
been deducted from the income of the deceased towards personal
expenses.
4. I note, service was effected upon respondent nos. 1 and 2,
however, none appeared on their behalf.
5. As regards the issue of multiplier is concerned, the same 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."
6. Therefore, keeping in mind the view taken by this Court in the
aforenoted case and the facts and circumstances of this case, I do not
find any substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the
appellant/Insurance Company on this issue.
7. So far as the issue of deduction towards personal expenses is
concerned, admittedly, the deceased was aged 20 years on the date of the
accident. He was unmarried and left behind his parents. Therefore,
considering the facts of the case, the learned Tribunal ought to have
deducted one-half of the income of the deceased towards personal
expenses instead of one-third.
8. I note, the deceased on the date of accident was 20 years of age.
He was unmarried and left behind his parents. His monthly income has
been assessed as Rs.3,050/- as per the minimum wages applicable to an
unskilled person on the date of accident, i.e., 23.03.2005. Despite the
above facts, Ld. Tribunal failed to add any amount in his actual income
towards future prospects.
9. The appellate court has to see whether the compensation granted is
just and fair to the loss or injury received by the deceased / injured; as
the case may be.
10. As far as the issue of future prospects is concerned, this issue has
been dealt by this court in the case bearing MAC.A No.846/2011 titled
as ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Angrej Singh &
Ors., decided on 30.09.2013 while relying upon the dictum of Rajesh
and Ors. Vs. Rajbir Singh and Ors. 2013 (6) SCALE 563.
11. Therefore, while reducing the personal expenses from 1/3rd to ½,
keeping the age of the deceased as 20 years on the date of accident, I add
50% in his actual income towards future prospects.
12. Consequently, the compensation comes as under:
Sl. Heads of Compensation Compensation
No. Compensation granted by ld. granted by this
Tribunal Court
1. Loss of dependency Rs.3,91,680/- Rs.4,39,200/-
2. Loss of love and Rs.10,000/- Rs.10,000
affection
3. For funeral expenses Rs. 5,000/- Rs.5,000/-
TOTAL Rs.4,06,680/- Rs.4,54,200/-
Accordingly, the compensation is assessed as Rs.4,54,200/-.
13. Resultantly, an amount of Rs.47,520/- (Rs.4,54,200 -
Rs.4,06,680/-) is enhanced.
14. The enhanced amount shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from
the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization.
15. Accordingly, appellant / insurance company is directed to deposit
the enhanced amount with up-to-date interest accrued thereon 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
@ 12% per annum on account of delayed payment.
16. On deposit, the Registrar General is directed to release the amount
in favour of the respondents / claimants in terms of the award dated
16.03.2006 passed by the learned Tribunal on taking steps by them.
17. In view of the above, the appeal is partially allowed.
CM No.8498/2006 (for stay)
With the disposal of the appeal itself, this application has become
infructuous. The same is accordingly disposed of.
SURESH KAIT, J.
MARCH 27, 2014
sb/jg
