Delhi High Court
Smt Nagina & Ors. vs Sh Pulta Ram & Ors. on 15 April, 2015
$~20
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 15th April, 2015
+ MAC.APP. 826/2013
SMT NAGINA & ORS. ..... Appellants
Through: Mr. Shekhar Aggarwal, Adv.
versus
SH PULTA RAM & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. J.P.N. Shahi, Adv. for R-3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
1. The appeal is for enhancement of compensation of `5,41,936/-
awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims
Tribunal) in favour of the Appellants for the death of Pramod Kumar,
who suffered fatal injuries in a motor vehicular accident which
occurred on 10.02.2008.
2. At the time of hearing the appeal, only two contentions are raised by
the learned counsel for the Appellants:-
(i) It is stated that though the Claims Tribunal accepted the age of
deceased Pramod Kumar to be 25 years still it adopted a
multiplier of 17 to compute the loss of dependency. The Claims
Tribunal ought to have adopted the multiplier of 18; and
(ii) The compensation awarded towards non-pecuniary damages is
on the lower side.
3. While granting compensation of `5,41,936/-, the Claims Tribunal
granted recovery rights to Respondent no.3 on the ground that
Respondent no.1 has violated the terms and conditions of the
insurance policy. The said finding has not been challenged by
Respondent no.1. Respondent no.1 has not even preferred to contest
this appeal in spite of service.
4. The appeal must succeed on both the grounds.
5. As per the School Leaving Certificate Ex.PW-1/2, the date of birth of
the deceased was 30.04.1983. Thus, he was a little less than 25 years
old on the date of the accident. The Claims Tribunal therefore, should
have taken the multiplier of 18 instead of 17 to compute the loss of
dependency.
6. The loss of dependency thus, comes to `5,47,200/- (3800/- x 12 x 2/3
x 18).
7. In view of the three Judge Bench decision of the Supreme Court in
Rajesh & Ors. v.Rajbir Singh & Ors., (2013) 9 SCC 54, the Appellants
would be entitled to a sum of `1,00,000/- each towards loss of love
and affection and loss of consortium, `25,000/- towards funeral
expenses and `10,000/- towards loss to estate.
8. The overall compensation hence, comes to `7,82,200/-.
9. Thus, the compensation is enhanced by `2,40,264/- which shall carry
interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the Claim
Petition till its payment.
10. The enhanced compensation along with interest shall be deposited by
Respondent no.3 Insurance Company within a period of six weeks,
failing which the Appellants will be entitled to interest @ 12% per
annum from the date of this judgment.
11. The enhanced compensation along with interest shall be released/held
in fixed deposit in favour of the Appellants in terms of the order
passed by the Claims Tribunal.
12. Since, as stated earlier, the finding on liability has not been
challenged, it is made clear that Respondent no.3 shall be entitled to
recover the amount of compensation paid in execution of this very
judgment without having recourse to independent civil proceedings
from Respondent no.1.
13. The appeal is allowed in above terms.
14. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
APRIL 15, 2015/vk
