Delhi High Court
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd vs Ashwani Khanna & Ors on 16 February, 2016
Author: R. K. Gauba
$~41
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 16th February, 2016
+ MAC.APP. 423/2008
ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Abhishek Kumar Gola, Adv.
versus
ASHWANI KHANNA & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjeev G. Sareen, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT
R.K.GAUBA, J (ORAL):
1. The insurance company by appeal at hand questions the
computation of compensation by the motor accident claims tribunal (the
tribunal) by judgment dated 01.04.2008 in claim petition of the second
to sixth respondents (the claimants), registered as petition no.482/2006,
arising out of death of Satish Ghai in a motor vehicular accident that
occurred on 20.11.2005 near Petrol Pump, GTK Road, involving car
bearing registration no.DL-3CK-8257, driven by the first respondent
herein, the said offending vehicle being concededly insured against third
party risk with the appellant/the insurance company.
2. The tribunal was not satisfied with the evidence led to prove
negligent driving on the part of the first respondent. It took recourse to
Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the MV Act) to
compute the compensation awarded (₹11,66,666/- with interest @ 7.5%
per annum) even though the petition had been filed for compensation
under Section 166 read with Section 140 the MV Act. It is this
approach which has become the bone of contention through the appeal
at hand.
3. During the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the
claimants submitted that he is agreeable if loss of dependency is
recomputed strictly in accord with the second schedule appended to the
MV Act in terms of Section 163-A, adopting the notional income of the
deceased at `40,000/- per annum only. He at the same time, submits
that there is need for further correction as the tribunal did not consider
grant of any compensation on account of loss of consortium, failing to
note that the widow of the deceased is one of the claimants.
4. With consent of both sides, the compensation is, recomputed.
The claimants being five in number, deduction on account of personal
and living expenses will have to be restricted to twenty five percent
(25%). Since the deceased was 39 years old at the time of the accident,
loss of dependency has to be computed on the multiplier of 15 [Sarla
Verma & Ors. vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC
121]. Therefore, loss of dependency is calculated at (30,000x15)
`4,50,000/-.
5. The tribunal had awarded `80,000/- towards loss of love &
affection and `20,000/- towards funeral expenses. The grievances of the
claimants with regard to non-consideration of award of loss of
consortium is justified. Thus, another sum of `80,000/- is added
towards loss of consortium. The total compensation is computed at
`6,30,000/-.
6. The tribunal had granted interest only at seven & half percent
(7.5%) per annum from the date of institution of the petition till actual
deposit. Having regard to the consistent view taken by Supreme Court
[Kaushnuma Begum vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (2001) 2 SCC 9;
Supe Dei vs National Insurance Co. Ltd. (2009) 4 SCC 513; Municipal
Corporation of Delhi, Delhi vs Association of Victims of Uphaar
Tragedy and Ors. (2011) 14 SCC 481; Basappa vs T. Ramesh (2014) 10
SCC 789; Syed Sadiq etc. vs Divisional Manager, United India Ins.
Company (2014) 2 SCC 735; Surti Gupta vs United India Insurance
Company and Ors. 2015 (3) SCALE 795; Kumari Kiran vs Sajjan Singh
(2015) 1 SCC 539] rate of interest is increased to nine percent (9%)
from the date of filing of petition (05.04.2006) till realization.
7. The award is, accordingly, modified.
8. The tribunal had given certain directions about the apportionment
of the awarded compensation. `75,000/- each had been granted to the
claimants other than the widow and the balance ordered to be released in
her favour.
9. By order dated 06.11.2008, the insurance company had been
directed to deposit seventy five percent (75%) of the awarded amount
with interest in the name of the Registrar General within the period
specified and the claimant had been allowed to withdraw fifty percent
(50%) of such deposit.
10. By order dated 26.02.2009, however, it was noted that the
appellant had deposited the entire amount with interest with the
Registrar General on 10.02.2009. The learned single judge then in
seisin of the matter directed the Registrar General to transfer the said
deposited amount to the tribunal within the period specified and, upon
such transfer, the tribunal was directed to release seventy five per cent
(75%) in favour of sixth respondent (the mother of the deceased) and
`3,50,000/- alongwith proportionate interest to the second respondent
(widow of the deceased). The balance amount was directed to be
deposited in four fixed deposit receipts, three in the names of third to
fifth respondents in the sum of `75,000/- with proportionate interest and
remaining in the name of second respondent with proportionate interest.
The tribunal was directed to retain the said four FDRs as security till
disposal of the appeal though the second respondent (widow) was
allowed to draw interest from such deposits.
11. Since compensation has been reduced, the apportionment needs to
be re-considered. Having regard to the amounts already released to the
second to six respondents herein (i.e. widow and mother respectively of
the deceased), it is directed that the balance amount now payable in
terms of the reduced award shall be apportioned equally amongst the
children i.e. third to fifty respondents respectively. Needless to add that
the amount to be thus released shall include share in the principal and
interest corresponding thereto.
12. The statutory deposit, if made, shall be refunded.
13. The appeal stands disposed of in above terms.
R.K. GAUBA
(JUDGE)
FEBRUARY 16, 2016/ssc
