Delhi High Court
Cholamandalam Ms General ... vs Rambir & Ors. on 22 January, 2015
Author: G.P. Mittal
$-
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 22nd January, 2015
+ MAC.APP. 711/2014
CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE CO.
LTD. ..... Appellant
Through: Ms. Suman Bagga, Advocate
with Mr. Saral Chaturvedi,
Advocate
versus
RAMBIR & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Alpana Pandey, Advocate,
Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
JUDGMENT
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
1. At the time of hearing the appeal, the learned counsel for the
Appellant presses the same only with regard to selection of
multiplier and addition towards the value of gratuitous services
rendered by deceased Smt. Sneh Lata.
2. It is urged by the learned counsel for the Appellant that as per
the MLC, postmortem report and the statement of Sonia, niece
of the deceased, on whose statement FIR was recorded, the age
of the deceased was mentioned as 45 years. However, the
Claims Tribunal erred in taking the age of the deceased as 33
years on the basis of the voter identity card issued by the
Election Commission of India.
3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the
Respondents(claimants) urges that voter identity card is an
authentic document; thus, the age was rightly taken. She
submits that the appeal is therefore, liable to be dismissed.
4. It may be seen that the age of deceased Sneh Lata in
postmortem report, MLC as well as in the statement of Sonia,
the deceased's niece on whose statement the FIR in question
was lodged, was stated to be 45 years. The same finds
corroboration from the age of the husband of the deceased and
age of the two children. The husband was aged 48 years and
the children were aged 17 and 15 years. The voter identity card
is taken as a proof of the age of the victim when authentic proof
of the age like matriculation certificate, certificate issued by
Municipal Corporation etc. are not available. Since the
documents in the shape of MLC, postmortem report and Sonia's
statement find corroboration from the age of the deceased's
husband and children, I will take the age of the deceased to be
45 years and hence, the appropriate multiplier will be 14.
Following Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company
Limited v. Master Manmeet Singh and Ors., 2012 ACJ 721, on
the basis of which loss of gratuitous services were awarded,
addition for loss of gratuitous services will be 15% instead of
25%. The loss of value of gratuitous services therefore, comes
to Rs.15,47,140/-(Rs.8008/- x 12 + 15 x 14/-) instead of
Rs.19,22,000/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal.
5. The compensation is thus, reduced by Rs.374,860/-.
6. By an order dated 04.08.2014, this Court had directed the
Appellant Insurance Company to deposit the entire award
amount. There was a further order for release of 70% of the
award amount in favour of the Respondents (claimants).
7. It is stated by the learned counsel for the Appellant that the
award amount has still not been deposited. In view of this, the
compensation as computed by this Court with interest @ 9% per
annum shall be deposited within six weeks, failing which the
Appellant Insurance Company shall be liable to pay interest @
12% per annum from the date of order passed by the Claims
Tribunal i.e. 05.03.2014 till the date of deposit.
8. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
9. Pending applications also stand disposed of.
10. Statutory amount of Rs.25,000/-, if any, shall also be refunded
to the Appellant Insurance Company.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
JANUARY 22, 2015
pst
