Delhi High Court
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Akila & Ors on 13 March, 2015
Author: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 13th March, 2015
+ MAC.APP. 260/2015
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Pankaj Seth, Adv.
Versus
AKILA & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
CM.APPL.4617/2015(Exemption)
1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. Application stands disposed of.
MAC.APP. 260/2015 and CM APPL.4616/2015 (stay)
3. Challenge is to the award/judgment dated 19th December, 2014 (in
M.A.C. Petition No.50/2013 Unique ID No.02402C0141762013) assessing
compensation of Rs.8,96,328/- for the death of son of the Respondents No.1
and 2 owing to the vehicle insured with the appellant.
4. The contention of the counsel for the Appellant is that the Tribunal
has erred in following the rate of minimum wages and has wrongly assessed
future prospects by adding 50%.
MAC.APP.260/2015 Page 1 of 5
5. In the impugned judgment, the age of the deceased at some places is
mentioned as 23 years and at other as 28 years at the time of the accident.
Though, a reference is made in para 8 to the mark sheet of High School
Examination but there is no mention of the date of birth recorded therein.
The Appellant also, in the grounds of appeal has not stated what according
to the record was the age of the deceased, whether 23 years or 28 years. It is
well nigh possible that "28" is a typographical error for "23".
6. I do not find anything wrong in the compensation being assessed at
the rate of minimum wages. The counsel also has not cited anything as to
on what other basis should the compensation have been assessed. As far as
award of addition of 50% towards future prospects is concerned, I have
enquired from the counsel that when the demise is at a young age and when
the possibility of the deceased getting fixed wages/permanent employment
cannot be said to have been exhausted on account of age, what is wrong
with assessing the future prospects by adding 50%, which is the maximum
permissible as per the dicta of the Supreme Court. After all, such a young
person even if at the time of accident had no fixed income / permanent
employment, could have got one. Considering the spirit of the legislation
under which the claim has been awarded, the benefit ought to be given to
MAC.APP.260/2015 Page 2 of 5
the victim.
7. The counsel for the Appellant has drawn attention to Clause 6 to the
Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which provides for
assessment of compensation on the basis of notional income of Rs.15,000/-
per annum to those who had no income prior to accident.
8. In my opinion, the said provision would not be applicable when the
deceased, at the time of accident, was 23/28 years of age. The said
provision appears to be designed for assessment of compensation with
respect to the injuries, fatal or otherwise, of such persons who have never
earned in the past, say house wives or who for the reason of advanced age or
for any other reason had / have no possibility of having any income on the
basis of which compensation can be assessed. The same cannot be said of
the deceased in the present case.
9. The only other contention of the counsel for the Appellant is that in
the impugned judgment, the multiplier of 17 has been wrongly applied
according to the age of the deceased when it should have been applied
according to the age of the mother of the deceased.
10. The impugned judgment records the age of the mother of the
deceased at the time of the accident as 38 years. There is nothing in the
MAC.APP.260/2015 Page 3 of 5
grounds of appeal to suggest that the same was at any time or even now
challenged by the Appellant. As per the age of 38 years of the mother of the
deceased, the multiplier applicable would be of 15 and not 17.
11. Issue notice to the Respondents No.1 and 2 limited to this aspect only
(the challenge on all other grounds is dismissed) by all modes including
Dasti, on steps to be taken within two weeks, returnable before the Registrar
on 18.08.2015.
12. The compensation as per multiplier of 15 be deposited in accordance
with the award / judgment of the Tribunal in the Tribunal only within four
weeks of today and be released to the Claimants.
13. The counsel for the Appellant at this stage seeks direction for keeping
of the compensation as per the multiplier of 15 even in a fixed deposit with
payment of interest thereon only to the Claimants. It is contended that it is a
standard direction in all matters and which remained to be issued in the
present case.
14. The Appellant is given liberty to bring the said fact to the notice of
the Tribunal and it is for the Tribunal to consider the said aspect.
15. It is clarified that in the event of the appeal being dismissed, the
Appellant shall remain liable to pay the balance amount of the award with
MAC.APP.260/2015 Page 4 of 5
interest as awarded.
16. Trial Court record be requisitioned.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
MARCH 13, 2015
vk
