Reliance Gen Ins Co Ltd vs Bimla Singhla & Ors
2014 Latest Caselaw 6297 Del

$~A-42
*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                                       Date of decision:28.11.2014
+     MAC.APP. 1043/2014 & CM No.18796-18798/2014
      RELIANCE GEN INS CO LTD            ..... Appellant
                      Through Ms.Shantha Devi Raman, Advocate
               versus
      BIMLA SINGHLA & ORS                ..... Respondent
                      Through Mr.Yash Pal Sharma, Advocate for R-1
                              to R-3

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH

JAYANT NATH, J. (ORAL)

%

1. The present appeal arises pursuant to an Award dated 30.6.2014 which was later on modified vide order dated 21.8.2014. The compensation petition was filed based on an accident that took place on 30.8.2012. The deceased Shri Satpal was going on his motorcycle after closing his shop at Mangolpuri. At Peer Baba, Mangolpuri the motorcycle was hit by one Gramin Seva stated to be driven at a very fast speed in a rash and negligent manner. Shri Satpal expired due to the injuries sustained by him in the accident.

2. The controversy centres around the compensation awarded to dependents of the deceased. The Tribunal has awarded the following compensation (including correction made on 21.08.2014):-

      1.     Loss of dependency              16,71,483/-
      2.     Loss of love and affection      1,00,000/-



          3.    Funeral charges               25,000/-
         4.    Loss of consortium            1,00,000/-
         5.    Loss of estate                10,000/-
               Total                         19,06,483/-

3. A perusal of the Award shows that the Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased based on the Income Tax Returns for the Assessment Year 2011-12 filed on 16.02.2012 i.e. before the accident. ITR shows return of Rs.1,98,200 for the assessment year 2011-12. The Tribunal also relied upon the evidence of PW-1 the son of the deceased and accepted the said income. The Tribunal concluded that the deceased was 52 years old. 15% of the assessed income was awarded for future prospects. 1/3rd was deducted towards personal living expenses and annual dependency was calculated at 16,71,483/-.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Tribunal has wrongly relied upon a single IT Return. She submits that the cross-examination of PW- 1 the son of the deceased indicates that the son is silent about the actual loss caused to the dependents inasmuch as from the cross-examination it is evident that the deceased owned two shops and he would be getting rentals of the two shops.

5. A perusal of the cross-examination of PW-1 shows that he admits that his father owned two shops. From one shop he claimed that he was running a chemist shop but he has surrendered his license of chemist shop and closed the shop. The second shop was being run by the father as a kirana shop. He further avers that his chacha has now grabbed the kirana shop. His chacha is now running the shop although he is paying some money for maintenance but he is

not paying any rent. He claims that he has no proof to show about the chemist shop and closure of the chemist shop.

6. A perusal of the cross-examination shows that PW-1 has not come clean. It appears that the fact that his chacha is running the shop after the death of deceased father appears to be a story concocted only to hide the fact that PW-1 perhaps or some other member of the family is running the shop.

7. At this stage, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.1 to 3 relies upon the judgment of a Division Bench of the Madras High Court in Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Padmawathi, 2012 ACJ 850. In para 11 the Madras High Court held as follows:-

"11. Even though a contention is projected on the side of the appellant/respondent No. 2, insurance company, that after the death of the deceased, his son, who is one of the claimants, had become the partner of Vasavi Packaging Industries, we cannot forget an important fact that the son who had been inducted as a partner could not take the role of a father, his experience, his expertise, his acumen, his knowledge and contribution to the family and, therefore, the contention that the family had not sustained any loss soon after the death of Sureshbabu and after the induction of his son as a partner in the said packaging firm was not tenable and a correct one."

8. Hence, even if I assume that the PW-1 is running the Kirana shop or has a share in the income of the kirana shop, in my opinion, the loss of the father would have severally effected the functioning of the shop. Further, in my view, the Tribunal rightly assessed the income based on the last ITR filed specially taking into account the fact that the deceased seems to be a man of sufficient means. He owned two shops in a DDA market in Mangol Puri. This clearly indicates that he has sufficient surplus funds from his business to be able to

purchase these two shops.

9. Hence, I see no merits in the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant. Appeal is dismissed. The interim order passed including order dated 26.11.2014 stands vacated.

10. The statutory amount, if any, deposited by the appellant at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellant.

11. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Tribunal has already attached the award amount. She submits that the company would require some time to study the judgment. Let the Tribunal not release the attached amount for a period of three weeks from today.

12. A copy of this order be given dasti as prayed for.

JAYANT NATH, J NOVEMBER 28, 2014 n