Delhi High Court
National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Sant Baksh And Ors. on 22 January, 2015
Author: G.P. Mittal
$-8
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 22nd January, 2015
+ MAC.APP. 975/2012
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. ..... Appellant
Through: Ms. Neerja Sachdeva, Adv.
versus
SANT BAKSH AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Mohinder Malhotra, Adv. for R-1.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
1. The only ground of challenge raised in the instant appeal is that
the compensation of Rs. 1 lakh awarded towards loss of estate ought
not to have been awarded as it was considered and laid down in Royal
Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited v. Master Manmeet
Singh and Ors., 2012 ACJ 721 that loss of estate is not to be
considered in the case of loss of gratuitous services rendered by a
home maker.
2. In the instant case, compensation of Rs.5,23,260/- was awarded
by learned Tribunal towards loss of gratuitous services rendered by a
home maker after deducting 50% towards personal expenses from the
total amount of loss of dependency since the deceased was issueless,
as laid down in Master Manmeet (supra). It is true that compensation
towards loss to estate is not permissible but at the same time,
compensation towards loss of consortium ought to have been Rs. 1
lakh instead of Rs. 10,000 and funeral expenses should have been Rs.
25,000 instead of Rs. 10,000/- in view of the judgment of Rajesh &
Ors. v. Rajbir Singh & Ors., (2013) 9 SCC 54. The overall
compensation is just and reasonable. As per award, counsel's fee is
Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 5,000/- are out of pocket expenses. The same are
not permissible in view of the judgment of this Court in ICICI
Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Kanti Devi & Ors., MAC
APP 645/ 2012 decided on 30.07.2012 where this court had gone into
the question of grant of counsel's fee and had concluded in para 32 of
the report what is extracted hereunder:-
"32. To sum up, it is directed:-
(i) The Claims Tribunal is empowered to award costs in a
Claim Petition in terms of Section 35 read with Order
XXA of the Code.
(ii) The Claims Tribunal is entitled to award the Counsel's
fee in accordance with Rule 1 read with Rule 1A and
Rule 9 of Chapter 16 Volume I of the Rules extracted
earlier.
(iii) In case of compromise/settlement of the claims, the
Claims Tribunal is not entitled to go beyond the
settlement reached between the parties. If the settlement
does not provide for payment of any Counsel's fee, it
shall not be within the domain of the Claims Tribunal to
award the Counsel's fee.
(iv) If the compensation is awarded on the basis of DAR in
pursuance of the legal offer made by the Insurer, the
Claims Tribunal is not empowered to award any costs
unless it forms part of the legal offer.
The counsel fee can be directly paid to the counsel only
when a specific agreement is filed and the Claimant
requires payment of fee directly to the counsel because
only then the Claimant would be liable to reimburse the
fee or part thereof in case the award is set aside or
varied.''
3. Hence, counsel's fee and out of pocket expenses ought not to be
granted. The award of interest at the rate of 9% does not call for any
interference.
4. The appeal is allowed only to the extent that there shall not be
any liability to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- towards counsel's fee and
Rs. 5,000/- towards out of pocket of expenses.
5. The appeal is allowed in the above terms. Statutory amount be
refunded.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
JANUARY 22, 2015
'sn'
