Delhi High Court
Santosh & Ors vs Sea Hawk Tour & Travels Pvt Ltd & Ors on 28 January, 2015
Author: G.P. Mittal
$-8
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on:28th January, 2015
+ MAC.APP. 983/2011
SANTOSH & ORS ..... Appellants
Through: Mr. S.N. Parashar, Advocate.
versus
SEA HAWK TOUR & TRAVELS PVT LTD & ORS
..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Shantha Devi Raman, Advocate
for R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
1. The Appellant impugns judgment dated 11.5.2011 passed by the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) whereby the
claims petition under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
preferred by the Appellants was dismissed relying on the judgment in
Ningamma & Another vs. United India Insurance Company, (2009) 13
SCC 710.
2. It is admitted by the learned counsel for the parties that the risk
of the driver was covered under the insurance policy and a sum of
Rs.25/- in addition to the usual premium was paid towards the risk of
the driver. It may be mentioned that during the pendency of this
appeal, the Appellants examined Sh.Pawan Kumar Aggarwal, an
employee working in Employees Provident Fund Organisation, who
proved that deceased Jaiveer was working in Sea Hawk Tour and
Travels Pvt. Ltd. and contribution to the provident fund was being
received from the employers. Thus, it is agreed by the learned counsel
for the parties that the Appellants would be entitled to compensation
under the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923. (see Tata AIG General
Insurance Co. Ltd., v. UP Roadways & Others, Mac Appl.
No.81/2007 decided on 16.03.2012.
3. On computation, the compensation for the death of a workman,
taking the salary of the deceased to be Rs.4000/- per month on the date
of the accident would come to Rs.4,15,960/- (207.98 x 4000 x ½). In
addition, the Appellants claim a sum of Rs.1,73,372/- towards the cost
of treatment. The bills with regard to the same have been placed on
record. The learned counsel for the Respondent Insurance Company,
however, submits that the bill for Rs.1,60,715/- should not be
considered as it is a duplicate bill. It is urged that the claimants might
have obtained reimbursement from other sources. It may be
mentioned that the bill Ex. PW2/2, which was duly proved, is a
computer generated bill. No suggestion was given to PW-2 that its
reimbursement was obtained from any quarter. In view of this the
Appellants would be entitled to Rs.1,73,372/- towards expenditure on
treatment of deceased Jaiveer.
4. The overall compensation of Rs.4,15,960/- + Rs.1,73,372 =
Rs.5,89,332/- is hence, awarded in favour of the Appellants which
shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the
petition till its payment.
5. Respondent no.2 is directed to deposit the compensation amount
with the Claims Tribunal within four weeks failing which the
Appellants would be entitled to interest @ 12% per annum from the
date of this judgment.
6. Out of the awarded amount, 50% of the compensation shall be
payable to the Appellant no.1, 10% each to Appellants no. 2 to 4 and
20% to Appellant no.5. Further, 50% of the amount awarded to the
Appellant no.1 shall be kept in Fixed Deposit for a period of two
years, four years and six years in equal proportion. The rest of the
amount shall be released on deposit. The amounts awarded to
Appellants no. 2 and 3 shall be held in fixed deposit for a period till
they attain the age of majority and shall be released to them on
attaining the age of 18 years. 50% of the amount awarded to the
Appellant no.4 shall be held in Fixed Deposit for a period of one year.
Rest shall be released to them on deposit.
7. The appeal stands disposed of.
8. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
JANUARY 28th, 2015
srb
