Delhi High Court
Reliance Gen. Ins. Co Ltd vs Sh Ram Naresh Yadav & Ors on 10 February, 2016
Author: R. K. Gauba
$~18
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 10th February, 2016
+ MAC APP. 13/2014
RELIANCE GEN. INS. CO LTD ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Arbaaz Hussain, Adv. for
Ms. Shantha Devi Raman, Adv.
versus
SH RAM NARESH YADAV & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. S. N. Parashar, Adv. for R-1
& 2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT
R.K.GAUBA, J (ORAL):
1. By judgment dated 25.09.2013, on the file of accident claim case
no.135/2012, the motor accident claims tribunal (the tribunal) granted
compensation in the sum of `45,88,496/- in favour of the first and
second respondent who had filed the claim petition under Sections 166
& 144 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the MV Act) on account of
death of Savita Yadav in a motor vehicular accident that had occurred at
about 12:30 PM on 26.07.2012 involving a truck bearing registration
no.UP-15AT-1716 (the offending vehicle) which concededly was
insured against the third party risk with appellant/insurance company
that was impleaded as third respondent before the tribunal.
2. The solitary ground pressed at the hearing on the appeal is that the
tribunal was in error by deducting one third towards personal and living
expenses to arrive at the compensation on account of loss of
dependency. It is argued that the first respondent, the husband, ought
not to have been treated as a dependant given the fact that he was self-
reliant. The contention of the insurance company is that half of the
earnings should have been deducted towards personal and living
expenses.
3. Having regard to the dicta in Sarla Verma & Ors. vs. Delhi
Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121, the contentions of
the insurance company cannot be upheld. Even if it is taken into
account that the husband was employed, it cannot be ignored that he was
employed in the capacity of a constable in Delhi Police and the earnings
of deceased's wife were much more than what could have been accruing
to him from his employment. Be that as it may, the financial support
alone does not account for loss of dependency.
4. The appeal is devoid of substance and is accordingly dismissed.
5. In terms of order dated 06.01.2014, the insurance company was
duty bound to deposit the entire awarded amount with up-to-date
interest in this court within a period specified and out of such deposit
seventy percent (70%) was allowed to be released to the claimant.
6. The Registrar General shall verify whether the said order has been
complied with or not and release the balance payable to the claimants in
terms of the impugned judgment. Should there be a short fall in such
deposit, as is contended by the learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1
& 2, the claimants will be entitled to take out an appropriate execution
proceedings before the tribunal to enforce the award.
7. The statutory deposit, if made by the insurance company, shall be
released only upon satisfaction that the award has been duly satisfied.
R.K. GAUBA
(JUDGE)
FEBRUARY 10, 2016/ssc
