Delhi High Court
Oriental Insurance Co Ltd vs Vinita Devi & Ors on 10 November, 2014
$~9
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision:10.11.2014
+ MAC.APP. 450/2011
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD ..... Appellant
Through Mr. A.K. Soni, advocate
versus
VINITA DEVI & ORS .....Respondents
Through Mr. Yogesh Swaroop and Mr. P.K.
Mittal, advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH
JAYANT NATH, J. (ORAL)
1. By the present appeal, the appellant seeks to impugn the award
dated 17.02.2011.
2. The brief facts giving rise to the present appeal and the claim
petition is that the deceased Yogesh Sharma died in an accident that took
place on 15.08.2007. He was driving his scooter and at the red light at
Bhajanpura, Wazirabad Road, Delhi, he was hit by a truck driven by
respondent No.8 in a rash and negligent manner. He fell down and
sustained injuries. He expired on 27.08.2007 due to the injuries
sustained.
3. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal concluded that the
accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of
the offending vehicle/respondent No.8.
4. On compensation, the Tribunal awarded total compensation of
Rs.11,12,760/- as follows:-
"1. Loss of Dependancy Rs.8,96,400/-
2. Love and Affection Rs.1,75,000/-
3. Loss of consortium Rs. 10,000/-
4. Funeral Expenses Rs. 10,000/-
5. Medical Expenses Rs. 11,360/-
6. Loss of Estate Rs. 10,000/-
Total Rs.11,12,760/''
5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant challenges the award
on different grounds as follows:-
(i) He firstly submits that the accident took place on 15.08.2007, on
which date, the minimum wages for a matriculate, as taken by the
Tribunal was Rs.4,131/- per month. He submits that the minimum wages
on the date of the accident for a matriculate was actually Rs.3,964/- and
not Rs.4,131/- as wrongly taken by the Tribunal. He further submits that
Rs.4,131/- was minimum wages taken on 01.08.2008.
(ii) He further submits that the Tribunal has deducted 1/5th on account
of personal expenses for the deceased holding that the deceased is
survived by seven defendants. He further submits that there are 7
dependants including the father and that there is no evidence to show that
the father was fully dependent upon the deceased. It averred that the
deceased is survived by four children, one widow and a mother and,
hence, total dependencies are six and 1/4th of the compensation amount
has to be deducted for personal and living expenses as per the judgment
of the Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma vs. DTC 2009 ACJ
1298.
(iii) He further challenges the grant of future prospects of 50%
inasmuch as the Tribunal has noted that the age of the deceased on the
date of the death was 39 years. Having computed the income based on
the minimum wages of a matriculate while calculating loss of
dependency, the same was enhanced by 50%.
(iv) He lastly submits that the Tribunal has awarded a sum of
Rs.25,000/- to each dependent for loss of love and affection, which is on
a higher side.
6. Learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 7 concedes that the
minimum wages would be taken as Rs.3,964/-. He also submits on
dependency, that the father of the deceased is aged around 70 years old
and was dependent upon the deceased. He further submits that the
Tribunal has rightly granted the future prospects and love and affection
based on various judgments of the High Court.
7. As far as calculation of loss of dependency is concerned, the
relevant income of the deceased is reduced to Rs.3,964/-.
8. On dependencies, a perusal of the evidence of PW 1, Smt. Vinita
Devi shows that she nowhere in her affidavit by way of evidence states
that the father was fully dependent upon the deceased. Keeping in view
this fact in my opinion, the number of dependents upon the deceased on
the date of death were only six and not seven. Hence, 1/4 th would be
deducted for personal and living expenditure.
9. On future prospects, this Court has relied upon the judgments of
the Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh & Ors. vs. Rajbir Singh & Ors.,
(2013) 9 SCC 54,: V. Mekala vs. M. Malathi & Anr 2014 ACJ 1441 and
Smt. Savita vs. Bindar Singh & Ors. (2014) 4 SCC 505, to uphold the
grant of future prospects.
10. Accordingly, there is no reason to interfere with the grant of future
prospects for calculating loss of dependency. The loss of dependency
would now come to Rs.8,02,710/- [(3964 + 50%) - ¼ x 12 x 15]
11. On love and affection, it is noted that the Tribunal has awarded
Rs.25,000/- for each dependent of the deceased for loss of love and
affection, hence, awarded a total of Rs.1,75,000/-. As there are only six
dependents, the compensation is reduced to Rs.1,50,000/-.
12. Learned counsel, at this stage, submits that the compensation may
be enhanced as the Tribunal has wrongly awarded only Rs.10,000/- for
loss of consortium.
13. Keeping in view the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of
Ranjana Prakash & Ors. vs. Divisional Manager & Anr. 2011 ACJ
2418, in my opinion, though the respondents No.1 to 7 have not filed an
appeal, there is justification in enhancing the compensation amount for
loss of consortium. I award Rs.50,000/- for loss of consortium.
14. Total compensation now payable to the respondents No.1 to 7
would now be as follows:-
"1. Loss of Dependancy Rs.8,02,710/-
2. Love and Affection Rs.1,50,000/-
3. Loss of consortium Rs. 50,000/-
4. Funeral Expenses Rs. 10,000/-
5. Medical Expenses Rs. 11,360/-
6. Loss of Estate Rs. 10,000/-
Total Rs.10,34,070/''
15. Statutory amount paid, if any, be released to the appellant.
16. All interim orders including the interim order passed by this Court
on 31.05.2011 stand vacated.
17. The balance claim amount as per this order be released to the
respondents No.1 to 7 with cumulative interest, if any.
18. No balance left will be returned to the appellant with proportionate
interest .
JAYANT NATH, J
NOVEMBER 10, 2014
RB
