Delhi High Court
Shriram General Insurance Co Ltd. vs Laxman Dass Goel And Ors. on 7 April, 2016
$~43
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 7th April, 2016
+ MAC.APP. 293/2016 & CM No.12924-26/2016
SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD.
..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Sameer Nandwani, Adv.
versus
LAXMAN DASS GOEL AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT
R.K.GAUBA, J (ORAL):
1. On the accident claim case (registered as MACT case No. 55/2011),
instituted on 31.01.2011 by the first to fifth respondents herein (the
claimants), for compensation on account of death of Pushpa in a motor
vehicular accident, that had occurred on 21.12.2010 at about 11 p.m.
involving rash driving of the motor vehicle, described as tanker bearing
registration No. HR 55 2626 (the offending vehicle), concededly insured
against third party risk with the appellant insurance company (insurer), the
motor accident claims tribunal (tribunal) held inquiry, clubbing the said
case with other similarly placed cases relating to the same accident and, by
judgment dated 22.12.2015, awarded compensation in the sum of Rs.
11,09,490/- in favaour of the claimants with interest, the said amount
including loss of dependency in the sum of Rs. 10,49,490/- which has been
calculated on the assumed income of Rs. 5850/- (it being the rate of
minimum wages of unskilled worker at the relevant point of time), adding
the element of future prospects.
2. By the appeal at hand, the insurance company questions the
computation only on the ground that the addition of future prospects was
incorrect.
3. It is noted that the tribunal has followed the law laid down by this
Court in the case reported as Royal Sundram Alliance Insurnace Co. Ltd.
vs. Manmeet Singh & Ors. 2012 ACJ 721 wherein guidelines were issued
for calculation of loss of dependency in the case of death of a housewife.
On being asked, the learned counsel for the appellant fairly conceded that
the view taken by the tribunal is in accord with the view taken in the said
case.
4. The counsel for the appellant, however, submits that there was
breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy inasmuch as the
driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid or effective driving
license and there was no valid permit held. It is noted that the tribunal has
upheld these contentions and has already granted recovery rights. In this
view, the interests of the appellant are duly protected. There is no case
made out for total exoneration. [National Insurance Company V. Swaran
Singh (2004) 3 SCC 297 and United India Insurance Company Ltd. V.
Lehru & Ors. (2003) 3 SCC 338].
5. Thus, the appeal is found devoid of substance. It (with accompanying
applications) is dismissed in limine.
6. It is noted that the registry has wrongly noted the cause title. The
records shall be suitably corrected.
7. Statutory amount, if deposited, shall be refunded.
R.K. GAUBA
(JUDGE)
APRIL 07, 2016/nk
