Delhi High Court
Shriram General Insurance Co. ... vs Rani & Ors. on 23 April, 2015
$-25
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 23rd April, 2015
+ MAC.APP. 1157/2013
SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. K.L.Nandwani, Adv.
versus
RANI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Ranjan Kumar, Adv. for R-1 to
R-6.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
JUDGMENT
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
1. There is twin challenge to the judgment dated 28.10.2013 passed by
the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) whereby
compensation of `15,92,440/- was awarded in favour of Respondents
no.1 to 6 for the death of Rakesh Kumar, who suffered fatal injuries in
a motor vehicular accident which occurred on 27.09.2013.
2. In fact, deceased Rakesh Kumar was a truck mechanic. At the time of
the accident, he was repairing truck bearing registration no.HR-38Q-
4316 and the offending truck bearing registration no.HR-38N-3240
came from behind and dashed against the stationary truck, which was
under repair, causing fatal injuries to deceased Rakesh Kumar.
3. It is urged by the learned counsel for the Appellant that there was
contributory negligence on the part of the deceased himself. The
insured was not liable to pay the full compensation. Consequently, the
Appellant Insurance Company was also not liable to pay the entire
compensation.
4. It is also urged that the addition towards inflation was not permissible.
5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for Respondents no.1 to 6
supports the impugned judgment.
NEGLIGENCE
6. I have the Trial Court record before me.
7. I have gone through the testimony of PW-2 SI Mool Chand, IO of the
case arising out of FIR no.125/2013, Police Station Sarita Vihar, New
Delhi in respect of the accident in question. I have also gone through
the site plan prepared in the criminal case copy of which has been
placed on record. Truck no. HR-38Q-4316 was parked on the extreme
left side of the road (flyover). The IO testified that when he reached
the spot of the accident, he found that the blinkers of truck no. HR-
38Q-4316 were on and the reflectors had already been placed correctly
by the driver.
8. Had the driver of offending truck a little careful he would have noticed
the truck under repair. In view of this, culpable negligence on the part
of the driver of the offending truck no. HR-38N-3240 was sufficiently
established.
COMPENSATION
9. As far as quantum of compensation is concerned, the deceased's
salary as a truck mechanic was claimed to be `9,000/- per month. In
the absence of any documentary evidence regarding the same, the
Claims Tribunal proceeded to take the minimum wages of a skilled
worker. Since the deceased was repairing the truck at the time of the
accident, it was established that he was a truck mechanic. Instead of
awarding compensation on minimum wages, I shall make an
assessment of the deceased's income to be `9,000/- per month.
10. The loss of dependency, therefore, comes to ` 12,96,000/- (9,000/- x
12 x 3/4 x 16). In the absence of any evidence of good future
prospects addition of 50% was not permissible.
11. On addition of the total sum of `2,35,000/- towards non-pecuniary
damages, as awarded by the Claims Tribunal, the overall
compensation comes to `15,31,000/-.
12. The award of compensation of `15,92,440/-, therefore, cannot be said
to be excessive and exorbitant calling for any interference by this
Court.
13. The appeal, therefore, has to fail; the same is accordingly dismissed.
14. Pending applications stand disposed of.
15. Statutory amount, if any, deposited shall be refunded to the Appellant
Insurance Company.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
APRIL 23, 2015
vk
