National Insruance Co.Ltd. vs Deep Narain Yadav & Ors.
2014 Latest Caselaw 5265 Del

$~A-39 & 40
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                      Date of decision: October 27, 2014

+    MAC.APP. 900/2006 and CM No.15334/2006 (stay)

     NATIONAL INSRUANCE CO.LTD.                ..... Appellant
                  Through Ms.Manjusha Wadhwa and Ms.Arpan
                          Wadhawan, Advocates.

                       versus

     DEEP NARAIN YADAV & ORS.                  .... Respondents

Through Mr.S.N.Parashar, Advocate for claimants/R-1 to 7.

+ MAC.APP. 905/2006 and CM No.15380/2006 (stay)

NATIONAL INSRUANCE CO.LTD. ..... Appellant Through Ms.Manjusha Wadhwa and Ms.Arpan Wadhawan, Advocates.

                       versus

     KUSHMI DEVI & ORS.                                ..... Respondents
                  Through          Mr.S.N.Parashar, Advocate for
                                   claimants/R-1 to 5.

     CORAM:
     HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH

JAYANT NATH, J(Oral):

1. The present two appeals are filed against the common order dated 18.08.2006. MAC.APP. 900/2006 pertains to Suit No.556/2005 which claim petition filed by the dependents of deceased Rohit Yadav. MAC APP.

905/2006 pertains to Suit No.548/2005 which was a claim petition filed by the dependents of late Sh. Jeevan.

2. On 11.08.2005, Jeevan and Rohit Yadav were sitting in a truck which was parked on the side of the road on main GTK Road, Samay Pur, Delhi. The offending vehicle, namely, another truck driven by Sh.Devender Kumar came from the side and hit the stationary truck in which the deceased were sitting. The said truck in which the deceased were sitting turned turtle and all the occupants in the said truck sustained serious/grievous injuries.

3. Jeevan was said to be 44 years of age and working as a labourer with Vaish Bhatta Company, Sonepat and said to be earning Rs.3,500/- per month. Rohit Yadav was said to be 31 years of age and said to be working as a driver with Vaish Bhatta Company, Sonepat and earning Rs.4,500/- per month. Sh.Satbir Singh is said to be the owner of the offending vehicle.

4. Based on the evidence on record in MAC APP.900/2006, the dependents of Rohit Yadav were given compensation as follows:-

I. Loss of financial dependency of the Rs.7,05,000/-

petitioners:

       II. Loss of consortium                                 Rs.15,000/-
       III. Compensation towards love and                     Rs.15,000/-
            affection
       IV Compensation towards funeral rites                 Rs.10,000/-
                            Total                           Rs.7,45,000/-

5. In MAC APP.905/2006, the dependents of Sh.Jeevan were given the following compensation:-

I. Loss of financial dependency of the Rs.6,84,000/-

petitioners:

       II. Loss of consortium                                 Rs.15,000/-
       III. Compensation towards love and                     Rs.15,000/-





           affection
       IV Compensation towards funeral rites                 Rs.10,000/-
                         Total                              Rs.7,24,000/-

MAC APP.900/2006

6. As far as the present appeal is concerned, learned counsel appearing for the appellant seeks to impugn the Award on two grounds. It is firstly submitted that the Tribunal while computing loss of dependency has taken into account the minimum wages for an unskilled worker, namely, of Rs.3,166/- and has enhanced the same by adding future prospects @ 50%. It is urged that future prospects of 50% has been erroneously added to the minimum wages. It is secondly urged that the multiplier has been taken as 18 while computing loss of dependency and that the deceased on the said date was 31 years and hence the multiplier applied should have been 16.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the claimants/respondents No. 1 to 7 submits that future prospects have rightly been granted as done in various judgments of this court. He submits that in any case if the multiplier has been wrongly applied, there are non-pecuniary damages awarded by the Tribunal which are very much on the meagre side and hence, the compensation is just, fair and reasonable and there are no grounds for this court to interfere with the Award of the Compensation.

8. As far as future prospects is concerned, this court applying the ratio of the judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh & Ors. vs. Rajbir Singh & Ors., (2013) 9 SCC 54, Smt.Savita vs. Bindar Singh & Ors., (2014) 4 SCC 505 and V.Mekala vs. M.Malathi & Anr., 2014 ACJ 1441 has already concluded that in the facts and circumstances as in the present case, grant of future prospects while computing loss of dependency is fair

and reasonable.

9. Coming to the multiplier, it is true that the deceased- Rohit Yadav was 31 years of age at the time of the accident and according to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Smt.Sarla Verma and Ors. vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121 the appropriate multiplier would be 16.

10. The Supreme Court in the case of Ranjana Prakash & Ors. vs. Divisional Manager & Anr.; 2011 ACJ 2418 (MANU/SC/0897/2011) held as follows:-

"6.We are of the view that High Court committed an error in ignoring the contention of the claimants. It is true that the claimants had not challenged the award of the Tribunal on the ground that the Tribunal had failed to take note of future prospects and add 30% to the annual income of the deceased. But the claimants were not aggrieved by Rs. 23,134/- being taken as the monthly income. There was therefore no need for them to challenge the award of the Tribunal. But where in an appeal filed by the owner/insurer, if the High Court proposes to reduce the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimants can certainly defend the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, by pointing out other errors or omissions in the award, which if taken note of, would show that there was no need to reduce the amount awarded as compensation. Therefore, in an appeal by the owner/insurer, the Appellant can certainly put forth a contention that if 30% is to be deducted from the income for whatsoever reason, 30% should also be added towards future prospects, so that the compensation awarded is not reduced. The fact that claimants did not independently challenge the award will not therefore come in the way of their defending the compensation awarded, on other grounds. It would only mean that in an appeal by the owner/insurer, the claimants will not be entitled to seek enhancement of the compensation by urging any new ground, in the absence of any cross-appeal or cross-objections."

11. In view of the judgment above, I am not inclined to reduce the compensation amount as compensation under non-pecuniary heads is on the lower side. The compensation awarded in the facts and circumstances is just, fair and reasonable. There are no grounds to interfere in the Award.

12. In view of the above, the present appeal is dismissed. Interim order passed by this court on 14.11.2006 stands vacated. Amount lying with this Court/UCO Bank along with accumulated interest, if any, be released to the claimants proportionately as per the directions in the Award.

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

MAC APP.905/2006

14. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that

15. As far as the present appeal is concerned, learned counsel appearing for the appellant seeks to impugn the Award on the above two grounds. It is firstly submitted that the deceased was above 40 years at the time of accident. She submits that even if the ratio of the Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh & Ors. vs. Rajbir Singh & Ors.(supra) is to be applied, future prospects @ 30% ought to be added and that the Tribunal has wrongly added future prospects @ 50%. It is secondly urged that the multiplier has been taken as 16 while computing loss of dependency and that the deceased on the said date was 44 years and hence the multiplier should have been used of 14.

16. In view of the reasons stated above in MAC APP. 900/2006, there are no merits in the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant.

17. The compensation awarded in the facts and circumstances is just, fair

and reasonable. There are no grounds to interfere with the Award.

18. In view of the above, the present appeal is dismissed. Interim order passed by this court on 14.11.2006 stands vacated. Amount lying with this Court/UCO Bank along with accumulated interest, if any, be released to the claimants proportionately as per the directions in the Award.

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

JAYANT NATH, J OCTOBER 27, 2014 rb