Delhi High Court
United India Insurance Co Ltd vs Poonam Sarin And Ors on 29 April, 2016
$~14 & 15
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 29th April, 2016
+ MAC.APP. 37/2013
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. P. Acharya, Adv. for Mr. Sameer
Nandwani, Adv.
versus
POONAM SARIN AND ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. O. P. Mannie, Adv. for R-1 to 4.
Mr. Amit Kumar Pandey, Adv. for
respondent/owner.
AND
+ MAC.APP. 573/2013
SMT POONAM SARIN & ORS ..... Appellants
Through: Mr. O. P. Mannie, Adv.
versus
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. P. Acharya, Adv. for Mr. Sameer
Nandwani, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT
R.K.GAUBA, J (ORAL):
1. Aman Sarin, found by the motor accident claims tribunal (the
tribunal) to be 30 years old at that point of time, employed as service
engineer with M/s Hitachi Home & Life Solutions (India) Ltd., died as a
result of injuries suffered in a motor vehicular accident that occurred on
05.06.2010, involving negligent driving of Maruti van bearing registration
no.DL-9CJ-5191 (the offending vehicle), which was admittedly insured
against third party risk with United India Insurance Company Ltd. (appellant
in MAC appeal no.37/2013).
2. The dependant family members of Aman Sarin (appellants in MAC
Appeal no.573/2013) instituted an accident claim case (petition
no.445/2010) on 11.08.2010 seeking compensation under Sections 166 &
140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the MV Act), impleading besides
United India Insurance Company Limited (the insurer), the driver and owner
respectively of the offending vehicle. The tribunal held inquiry and, by
judgment dated 05.11.2012, upheld the case of the negligent driving and
awarded compensation in the sum of `27,98,016/- with interest at the rate of
seven & half percent (7.5%) per annum from the filing of the petition till
realization in favour of the claimants, calling upon the insurer to satisfy the
award. The said amount of compensation includes `3,06,440/- towards
medical expenditure, `10,000/- each towards loss of consortium and loss to
estate and funeral expenses, besides `25,000/- on account of loss of love &
affection and `24,36,576/- towards loss of dependency.
3. In calculating the loss of dependency, the tribunal accepted the
evidence of Mohit Sharma (PW3), Service Incharge, Hitachi Home &
Solution India Ltd., based, inter-alia, on salary certificate (Ex.PW1/3) to
conclude that the deceased was earning `11,944/- per month as salary, on
which the element of 50% increase future prospects was added.
4. By appeal at hand, the insurer questions the computation of
compensation on the ground that addition of future prospects was erroneous
for the reason the evidence of PW3 would show that the deceased was not in
regular employ.
5. Per contra, the claimants argue that deduction on account of personal
and living expenses to the extent of one third was wrong because the number
of dependants is four and, therefore, it should have been restricted to one
fourth. The claimants also urge by their appeal that the non-pecuniary heads
and rate of interest are inadequate.
6. Having heard both sides and perused the record, this court finds no
substance in the appeal of the insurer. The evidence of PW3 clearly shows
that the deceased was a regular employee and would have earned
progressive increase in income in future. In view of irrefutable evidence to
this effect, the addition of future prospects cannot be grudged [see judgment
dated 28.03.2016 in MAC.APP. 548/2013 United India Insurance Company
Limited v. Kamla & Ors.].
7. There is merit in the grievance about personal and living expenses.
Since the net income calculated was `17,916/-, the monthly loss of
dependency would be (17916x3/4) `13,437/-. On the multiplier of 17 which
was correctly applied, the total loss of dependency is calculated as
(13437x12x17) `27,41,148/-.
8. Following the view taken by this court in Rajesh & Ors. v. Rajbir
Singh & Ors., (2013) 9 SCC 54 and Shashikala V. Gangalakshmamma
(2015) 9 SCC 150, the non-pecuniary heads of damages are increased to
`1,00,000/- each towards loss of consortium and loss of love & affection
and `25,000/- each towards loss of estate and funeral expenses. Adding the
award towards medical expenditure, the total compensation in the case
comes to (27,41,148+3,06,440+2,50,000) `32,97,588/-, rounded off to
`33,00,000/-.
9. Following the consistent view taken by this Court [see judgment dated
22.02.2016 in MAC.APP. 165/2011 Oriental Insurance Co Ltd v. Sangeeta
Devi & Ors.], the rate of interest is increased to 9% per annum from the date
of filing of the petition till realization.
10. By order dated 14.01.2013 (in MAC appeal no.37/2013), the
insurance company had been directed to deposit the entire awarded amount
with up-to-date interest with UCO Bank, Delhi High Court branch, New
Delhi and from out of such deposit 50% was allowed to be released, balance
retained in form of fixed deposit receipt. The Registrar General shall take
necessary steps to get the balance released in favour of the claimants from
such deposit. The insurance company is directed to deposit the remainder of
its liability in terms of the award modified as above with the tribunal within
30 days of this judgment, upon which the same shall also be released
accordingly.
11. The statutory deposit, if made by the insurer, shall be refunded.
12. The appeals are disposed of in above terms.
R.K. GAUBA
(JUDGE)
APRIL 29, 2016/ssc
