Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Keshav Nand Sharma & Ors
2015 Latest Caselaw 1801 Del

$-26

*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                        Decided on: 02nd March, 2015

+       MAC.APP. 3/2007

        ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
                                                    ..... Appellant
                             Through:   Mr.A.K. Soni, Advocate for
                                        Mr. Pradeep Gaur, Advocate

                    versus


        KESHAV NAND SHARMA & ORS
                                                    .... Respondents
                             Through:   None.


        CORAM:
        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL

                             JUDGMENT

G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)

1. The instant appeal is directed against the judgment dated

20.09.2006 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the

Claims Tribunal) whereby compensation of Rs.2,70,920/- was

awarded in favour of Respondent no.1 for the death of his son

Vijay Nand, a bachelor who succumbed to the fatal injuries

sustained in a motor vehicular accident which occurred on

19.08.1997.

2. There is twin challenge to the impugned judgment. First, the

compensation awarded is exorbitant and excessive as deduction

towards personal and living expenses ought to have been made

to the extent of 50%, the deceased being a bachelor and the

multiplier on the basis of age of mother of the deceased ought to

have been taken. Second, since the driving licence of the driver

was found to be fake, the Appellant Insurance Company ought

to have been granted recovery rights.

3. I have perused the Trial Court record. I will agree with the

learned counsel for the Appellant that in case of a bachelor,

deduction towards personal and living expenses have to be 50%

(See Sarla Verma (Smt.) & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation

& Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121) and the multiplier has to be as per

the age of the deceased or the claimant, whichever is higher. A

reference in this connection may be made to U.P. State Road

Transport Corporation & Ors. v. Trilok Chandra & Ors.,

(1996) 4 SCC 362; Manam Saraswathi Sampoorna Kalavathi &

Ors., v. The Manager, APSRTC, Tadepalligudem A.P. & Anr.,

(2010) 5 SCC 785; and the judgment of this Court in Vijay

Laxmi & Anr. v. Binod Kumar Yadav & Ors,. MAC.APP.

1148/2011 decided on 03.01.2012.

4. The salary of the deceased was taken to be Rs.1850/- per month

which was equal to the minimum wages of a semi-skilled

worker at the relevant time. Therefore, the loss of dependency

comes to Rs.1,44,300/- (Rs.1,850/- ÷ 2 x 12 x 13).

5. In addition, in view of three Judge Bench decision of the

Supreme Court judgment in Rajesh & Ors. v. Rajbir Singh &

Ors., (2013) 9 SCC 54, I further award a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-

towards loss of love and affection, Rs.25,000/- towards funeral

expenses and Rs.10,000/- towards loss to estate.

6. The overall compensation thus, comes to Rs.2,79,300/-, which

is slightly more than the what was awarded by the Claims

Tribunal. Therefore, it cannot be said that the compensation

awarded by the Claims Tribunal is exorbitant or excessive.

7. As far as liability of the Appellant Insurance Company is

concerned, although the Appellant proved that licence no.S

1071/MRT/87 was issued by the Licensing Authority, Meerut in

the name of one Shahid Hasan s/o Manzoor Ahmed and not in

the name of Prem Singh, the driver of the offending vehicle, yet

the Appellant failed to prove that there was conscious and

willful breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance

policy on the part of the insured. No notice was issued to the

owner of the insured vehicle to prove the driving licence of the

driver. Hence, in my view, the Appellant failed to discharge the

initial onus placed upon it. The Appellant's liability therefore,

cannot be disputed.

8. Since the Appellant Insurance Company failed to prove that

there was conscious and willful breach of the terms and

conditions of the insurance policy by the insured, the Appellant

was rightly declined recovery rights by the Claims Tribunal.

9. The appeal therefore, has to fail; the same is accordingly

dismissed.

10. The compensation payable to Respondents (claimants) shall be

disbursed/held in Fixed Deposit in terms of the orders passed by

the Claims Tribunal.

11. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

12. Statutory amount, if any, deposited shall be refunded to the

Appellant Insurance Company.

(G.P. MITTAL) JUDGE MARCH 02, 2015 pst