Delhi High Court
Beena Devi & Ors vs Ravindra Singh & Ors on 9 February, 2016
$~22
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 09th February, 2016
+ MAC.APP. 776/2012
BEENA DEVI & ORS ..... Appellants
Through: Mr. Navneet Goyal, Adv.
versus
RAVINDRA SINGH & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Shoumik Mazumdar, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT
R.K.GAUBA, J (ORAL):
1. The appellants were the claimants before the motor accident
claims tribunal ("the tribunal") in petition presented under Sections 166
and 140 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the MV Act) submitted on
03.04.2012, registered as suit no.316/2011 claiming compensation on
account of death of Vijay Shankar on 24.04.2009 on account of injuries
suffered in motor vehicular accident that occurred on 11.04.2009
involving Quails car bearing registration no.DL-6CG-5528 (the
offending vehicle). In the claim petition, the first respondent was
impleaded as the driver of the offending vehicle on account of whose
negligent driving the accident statedly occurred. The second respondent
admittedly was the registered owner of the offending vehicle and it was
concededly insured against third party risk with third respondent herein,
both of which were shown in the array of parties. The insurance
company, however, took the plea that there was breach of terms of the
policy and that first respondent was not holding a valid driving license.
On the basis of evidence led, this contention was upheld and it was held
that the driving license relied upon by the respondent nos.1 & 2 was a
fake document. Accepting the evidence on the question of involvement
and negligence, first and second respondent were held jointly and
severally liable. The tribunal awarded compensation in the sum of
`4,75,520/- with interest @ 7.5% from the date of filing of petition till
realization. In arriving at the said computation it assessed the loss of
dependency at `4,55,520/- on the basis of minimum wages payable to a
matriculate at `4382/- per month at the time of accident. Non-pecuniary
damages in the sum of `5,000/- each were added under the heads of
funeral expenses, loss of consortium, loss of estate and loss of love and
affection.
2. The appeal questions the computation on the ground that the
evidence led through R. K. Sharma (PW3) Accounts Manager in M/s
Kalpana Trading Company was wrongly disbelieved and, thus, loss of
dependency needs to be recalculated. The appellants also contend that
the non-pecuniary damages as awarded are inadequate. The appellants
further argue that even if the driving license was found to be forged, the
insurance company should have been held liable to pay the
compensation though it may have been granted recovery rights against
the insurer.
3. Inspite of service, first and second respondent have failed to
appear to contest the appeal. It is noted that after filing the written
statement before the tribunal, the said parties had suffered the
proceedings before that forum exparte.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellants, this court
finds no substance in the claim as regards the salary of the deceased on
the basis of evidence of PW3. The tribunal rejected the said evidence,
for justifiable reasons, inasmuch as PW3 was unable to confirm the
status of the engagement of the deceased with the said company, the
appointment letter (Ex.PW3/1), having been authenticated after the
death for no plausible reason. Service records of the deceased with the
employer was also not adduced.
5. In above facts and circumstances, no error is found in the
calculation of loss of dependency. There is, however, substance in the
contention that non-pecuniary damages as awarded by the tribunal are
too meagre. Having regard to the view taken in Rajesh & Ors. vs.
Rajbir & Ors., (2013) 9 SCC 54, the award on account of loss of
consortium and loss of love and affection is enhanced to `1,00,000/-
each. Similarly, the award on account of funeral expenses and loss of
estate is increased to `25,000/- and `10,000/- respectively.
6. In this view, the compensation is bound to be enhanced to
`6,70,520/-, rounded off to `6,71,000/-. Ordered accordingly.
7. The enhanced compensation shall also carry interest as levied by
the tribunal in the impugned judgment.
8. The tribunal returned a clear finding that the driving license relied
upon by the respondent nos.1 & 2 was a forged document. In these
circumstances, there is indeed a breach of terms of the policy. However,
this should not have come in the way of the insurance company being
directed to discharge its liability towards the claimants in terms of the
insurance policy covering third party risk. The proper course for
tribunal would have been to direct the insurance company to pay the
compensation and at the same time granting right to recover it from the
person insured [National Insurance Company V. Swaran Singh (2004) 3
SCC 297].
9. The direction in the impugned judgment is modified to the effect
that the insurance company shall be obliged to pay the compensation
amount, as enhanced with up-to-date interest, to the claimants within 30
days of today by depositing it with the tribunal. After the said deposit,
the insurance company shall be entitled to take out appropriate
proceedings to recover the said amount from the second respondent.
10. The appeal is disposed of in above terms.
R.K. GAUBA
(JUDGE)
FEBRUARY 09, 2016/ssc
