Delhi High Court
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. vs Kamla & Ors on 15 May, 2014
Author: Suresh Kait
$~6
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on:15th May, 2014
+ MAC.APP.434/2012
ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. ..... Appellant
Represented by: Mr. R.C. Mahajan, Advocate.
Versus
KAMLA & ORS ..... Respondents
Represented by: Mr.C.R.Jagar, Advocate for
Respondent Nos.1 to 5.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
MAC.APP.434/2012
1. Vide the present appeal, the appellant/Insurance Company has
assailed the award dated 02.02.2012, whereby the learned Tribunal has
granted compensation for an amount of Rs.11,58,728/- with interest at the
rate of 7.5% 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 argued that the claimants have failed to establish that deceased
Dharambir Singh was not in a permanent employment, despite, the learned
Tribunal has added 30% in his actual income towards future prospects.
3. Learned counsel further submitted that the compensation granted
towards non-pecuniary heads is also on higher side.
4. As far as the issue of future prospects is concerned, the same has been
dealt with by this Court 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, and held as under:-
"27. In view of above, this court is guided by the legal
principles as set out in Reshma Kumari and Rajesh in order to
assess the just compensation as it is envisaged in Section 168 of
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. In Reshma Kumari, the Apex Court
affirmed the findings of Sarla Verma; and in Rajesh, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has agreed with the dictum of Santosh
Devi. Specifically, for the assessment of future prospects in
respect of the persons falling under the category of self-
employment / fixed wages this court is guided by the dictum laid
down in Rajesh. In my considered opinion, there is no
contradiction in the dictum laid down by the Apex Court in the
cases of Reshma Kumari and Rajesh."
5. Moreover, the claimants have placed on record the salary certificate of
the deceased. The same has not been rebutted nor any contrary evidence
thereto has been filed by the Insurance Company. The age of the deceased
was 48 years at the time of the accident.
6. Hence, keeping in mind the settled position of law and the facts and
circumstances of the case, I do not find any substance in the submission of
the learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company on this issue.
7. As far as the issue of non-pecuniary damages is concerned, at the time
of the accident, i.e., 11.01.2007, the deceased was 48 years of age. He was
working with M/s Nutech Precision Pools and the monthly income has been
assessed by the learned Tribunal at Rs.6500/-. He is survived by a widow,
three sons and a daughter. Due to sudden demise of the deceased, the
respondent No.1/wife has lost the association of her husband and all
enjoyment of life. Respondent Nos. 2 to 4/children have lost the love,
affection, care and guidance of their father.
8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned
Tribunal has granted a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- for loss of love and affection,
Rs.10,000/- each for loss of consortium and funeral charges and Rs.50,000/-
for loss of estate.
9. In my considered opinion, the amount granted under the heads of non-
pecuniary damages noted above is not on higher side. Hence, I find no
substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the
appellant/Insurance Company on this ground as well.
10. In view of the above discussion, the instant appeal is dismissed.
11. Consequently, the Registry of this Court is directed to release the
statutory amount in favour of the appellant/Insurance Company and the
compensation amount with upto date interest in favour of the
respondents/claimants in terms of the order dated 02.02.2012 passed by the
learned Tribunal on taking necessary steps by them.
CM.No. 7278/2012 (for stay)
With the dismissal of the appeal itself, the instant application has
become infructuous. The same is accordingly dismissed.
SURESH KAIT, J.
MAY 15, 2014
Sb/RS
