Delhi High Court
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Madhu Devi & Ors. on 18 November, 2014
$~A-51,16
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 18.11.2014
+ MAC.APP. 326/2013
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. ..... Appellant
Through: Mr.K.L.Nandwani, Advocate
versus
MADHU DEVI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.O.P.Maini, Advocate for R.1 to 5.
+ MAC.APP. 702/2013
SMT MADHU DEVI & ORS ..... Appellants
Through: Mr.O.P.Maini, Advocate
versus
SH WALI RAM & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.K.L.Nandwani, Advocate for R.3.
Mr.S.N.Parashar, Advocate for R.6 & 7.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH
JAYANT NATH, J. (Oral)
1. The present two appeals are filed pursuant to an award dated 14.12.2012.
2. MAC.APP.No.326/2013 is filed by the appellant New India Assurance
Company Ltd. seeking to impugn the compensation awarded.
3. MAC. APP. No. 702/2013 is filed by the claimant seeking enhancement of
compensation.
4. The brief facts which give rise to the filing of the claim petition are that on
11.09.2009, the deceased Late Shri Virender Singh Negi along with Shri Jitender
Singh Negi was going on a motorcycle from Lajpat Nagar, Ghaziabad to Railway
Station. After they had crossed Hindon Bridge, they were hit by a truck being
driven in a rash and negligent manner.Both the occupants sustained grievous
injuries. Shri Virender Singh Negi died due to the injuries sustained. The claim
petition was filed by the dependents of late Sh. Virender Singh Negi.
5. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal granted a total compensation
of Rs.31,94,241/-, the details of which are as follows:-
Loss of dependency Rs.30,64,241/-
Loss of Love and affection Rs.01,00,000/-
Loss of Estate Rs.0,10,000/-
Funeral Expenses Rs.0,10,000/-
Loss of consortium Rs.0,10,000/-
Total Rs.31,94,241/-
MAC APP 326/2013
6. I will first deal with the present appeal which is filed by the New India
Assurance Company Ltd. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that
the Tribunal has wrongly awarded Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for loss of love
and affection. He relies upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sunil Sharma
vs. Bachatar Singh (2011) 4 SCALE 383 and Sarla Devi & Ors. vs. Divisional
Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. 2014 (9) SCALE 520 to
contend that the compensation for loss and affection should have been Rs.25,000/-
. He further submits that the Tribunal has directed payment of compensation along
with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of appeal till realization. He
submits that it is on the higher side and should have been 7.5% per annum only.
7. As far as loss of love and affection is concerned, reference may be had to the
judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh & Ors. vs. Rajbir Singh &
Ors., (2013) 9 SCC 54, Kala Devi V. Bhagwan Das, 2014 (12) Scale 513 and
Anjani Singh vs. Salauddin, JT 2014 (7) SC 183.
8. In view of the above, there are no reasons to interfere in the award of
compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of love and affection.
9. There is also no reason to interfere in the directions of pendente lite interest
of 9% per annum.
10. There is no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed.
11. The statutory amount paid, if any, be refunded to the insurance company.
MAC.APP.No.702/2013
12. This appeal has been filed by the claimants. Learned counsel for the
claimants seek enhancement of compensation. He submits that while calculating
the compensation, the Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased at
Rs.35,995/- per month and has not enhanced the same on account of future
prospects. He submits that the deceased on the date of the accident was 54 years.
He relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh & Ors. vs.
Rajbir Singh & Ors (supra). He submits that the income should be enhanced by
15% on account of future prospects for calculating the loss of dependency. He
further submits that the deceased was survived by five dependants, namely, the
widow, the mother, two sons and one unmarried daughter. He states that 1/4th
should be deducted towards personal and living expenses instead of 1/3rd as done
by the Tribunal.
13. As far as grant of future prospect is concerned, this Court in several
judgments has relied on the case of Rajesh and Ors. vs. Rajbir Singh Ors.(supra),
Smt.Savita vs. Bindar Singh and Ors., (2014) 4 SCC 505 and V.Mekala vs.
M.Malathi & Anr. 2014 ACJ 1441 to grant future prospects. Accordingly, it will
be just and fair to enhance the income of the deceased by 15% for calculation of
loss of dependency.
14. On the issue of dependents, PW1, namely Smt.Madhu Devi, the widow of
the deceased in her affidavit states that deceased was survived by mother, herself
and 3 children; one son is aged 32 years, one daughter is 27 years and another son
aged 22 years. Reliance is placed on the judgment of this Court in the case of
National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Shakuntala, MANU/DE/1054/2010 MAC. APP.
No.475/2008 dated 11.01.2010 to contend that an unmarried daughter will be
considered to be dependent on the deceased.
15. In view of the factual position that the daughter is aged 27 years is
unmarried on the date of the incident, I accept that she is dependent on the
deceased. Hence the deduction would be 1/4th and not 1/3rd towards personal
expenses of the deceased for computing loss of dependency. Accordingly, loss of
dependency would now come to Rs.38,70,372/- (Rs.33,995 + 15% - ¼ ) x 12 x 11).
16. On the last submission of non pecuniary benefits, I enhance the payment for
loss of consortium from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.1,00,000/-.
17. The total compensation would now read as follows:-
Loss of dependency Rs.38,70,372/-
Loss of Love and affection Rs.01,00,000/-
Loss of Estate Rs.0,10,000/-
Funeral Expenses Rs.0,10,000/-
Loss of consortium Rs.1,00,000/-
Total Rs.40,80,372/-
18. The Insurance Company shall deposit the enhanced compensation amount
within six weeks from today along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date
of filing of the petition. The same shall be deposited with the Register General of
this Court and be released to the claimants proportionately in the same manner as
directed in the award.
JAYANT NATH, J
NOVEMBER 18, 2014/ks
