Delhi High Court
United India Insurance Co.Ltd. vs Madhu Sachdeva & Ors. on 23 March, 2015
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 23rd March, 2015
+ MAC.APP. 386/2007
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD. ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. K.L.Nandwani, Adv.
versus
MADHU SACHDEVA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Nemo.
+ MAC.APP. .........../2015
MADHU SACHDEVA & ORS. ..... Appellants
Through: Nemo
versus
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. K.L.Nandwani, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
CM APPL.13390/2009 (cross-objections) in MAC.APP. 386/2007
1. These are cross-objections to the appeal. Let it be registered as MAC
APP______/2015.
2. Application stands disposed of.
MAC.APP. 386/2007
MAC.APP /2015 (to be numbered)
3. These two appeals arise out of common judgment dated 01.05.2007
passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal)
whereby compensation of `4,00,000/- was awarded in favour of
Respondents No. 1 to 3 in MAC.APP. 386/2007 for the death of S.K.
Sachdeva, who suffered fatal injuries in a motor vehicular accident
which occurred on 14.08.1996.
4. For the sake of convenience, Appellant in MAC APP.386/2007 shall
be referred to as the Insurance Company whereas Appellants in cross-
appeal being MAC APP._____/2015 shall be referred to as the
Claimants.
5. Following contentions are raised on behalf of the Insurance
Company:-
(i) Negligence on the part of the driver of bus no.DEP 5741
involved in the accident was not proved; and
(ii) Deceased's widow had re-married and therefore, she was not
dependant upon the deceased.
6. None has appeared on behalf of the Claimants.
7. I have perused the impugned judgment and the Trial Court record.
NEGLIGENCE
8. By an order dated 15.01.2010 passed by this court, additional evidence
was ordered to be recorded. Testimony of Sunil Taneja, who was an
eye witness in the criminal case was recorded in this Court on
23.03.2010 and 04.05.2010. PW Sunil Taneja categorically stated that
the bus was being driven in a rash and negligent manner and at fast
speed.
9. It is well settled that in a Claim Petition under Section 166 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act), negligence is required to be
proved on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities. (Bimla
Devi and Ors. v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and Ors.,
(2009) 13 SC 530).
10. The evidence of PW Sunil Taneja was not discredited either by
examining the driver of the offending bus or by any other evidence.
Thus, it is sufficiently established that there was negligence on the part
of the driver of the bus bearing registration no.DEP-5741 and the
Claimants are hence, entitled to compensation.
COMPENSATION
11. The salary certificate of deceased S.K. Sachdeva was proved as
Ex.PW3/1 which shows that the deceased was getting a gross salary of
Rs.6409/- per month. The deceased was working as an Accounts
Officer with Jubilant Organosys Ltd. The allowances in the shape of
House Rent Allowance, Special Allowance, Medical Allowance,
Leave Travel Allowance, Provident Fund and Gratuity were also for
the benefit of the family.
12. At the most, a sum of `1900/- could have been taken as an allowance
incidental to employment being used only for the purpose of carrying
out the duties. Thus, `4509/- shall have to be considered as the salary
of deceased S.K.Sachdeva for computation of loss of dependency.
13. Once the amounts of HRA, Provident Fund and Gratuity are taken as
non-taxable, the salary of the deceased would be less than `40,000/-
per annum; hence, it was not taxable.
14. Deceased S.K. Sachdeva was in settled employment in a large
company earning increments. Thus, the Claimants would be entitled to
addition of 50% towards future prospects.
15. There were three dependants. Even if dependency of Claimant No.1 is
not taken after her re-marriage, there were still two dependents. By
deducting 1/3rd towards personal and living expenses and applying the
multiplier of 15, the loss of dependency will come to Rs.8,11,620/-
(4509/- x 12 + 50% x 2/3 x 15).
16. Since the accident relates to the year 1996, I tend to award a sum of
`25,000/- each towards loss of love and affection and loss of
consortium and `10,000/- each towards funeral expenses and loss to
estate.
17. The overall compensation thus, comes to ` 8,81,620/-.
18. The Claimants will be entitled to interest on the amount awarded by
the Claims Tribunal @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the
petition till the deposit of the amount, less the period from 22.01.2003
when the petition was dismissed in default till 17.01.2005, when the
claim petition was restored to its original number.
19. The Claimants will be further entitled to interest on the enhanced
amount from the date of filing of the petition till its payment, less the
period from 22.01.2003 to 17.01.2005 where 6% per annum interest is
awarded by the Claims Tribunal.
20. The Claimants will also be entitled to interest @ 7.5% per annum on
the enhanced amount of `4,81,620/- from the date of filing of the
appeal till its payment.
21. The enhanced compensation along with interest as stated above, shall
be deposited by the Insurance Company with UCO Bank, Delhi High
Court Branch, New Delhi within eight weeks.
22. Since the widow had re-married and has not come forward to contest
the appeal or cross appeal, 75% of the enhanced compensation along
with interest shall be payable to Claimant/Respondent No.3 (daughter
of the deceased) and rest 25% shall be paid to Respondent No.1
(mother of the deceased).
23. 50% of the amount awarded to Claimant/Respondent No.3 shall be
held in fixed deposit for a period of three years. Rest shall be released
on deposit.
24. Both the appeals are disposed of in above terms.
25. The statutory amount, if any, deposited shall be refunded to the
Appellant Insurance Company after the enhanced amount is deposited
and a certificate to this effect is filed with the Registrar General of this
Court.
26. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
MARCH 23, 2015
vk
