Delhi High Court
National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Roopwati & Ors on 29 February, 2016
$~19
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 29th February, 2016
+ MAC.APP. 1189/2014
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
..... Appellant
Through Mr. Pradeep Gaur and Mr. Amit
Gaur, Advs.
versus
ROOPWATI & ORS
..... Respondent
Through Mr. Kanishk Agarwal and Mr. Arhit
Jain, Advs. for R-1 to 8
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT
R.K.GAUBA, J (ORAL):
1. Raja Ram Thakur, born on 15.07.1960, died as a result of injuries
suffered in a motor vehicular accident at about 3.30 AM on 03.07.2011
involving a motor vehicle No.MP 04 GA 0554 concededly insured against
third party risk with the insurer (the appellant). A claim case under Sections
166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MV Act) was filed and
registered before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal as case
No.118/2014/11-F. The Tribunal after inquiry by judgment dated
22.11.2014 granted compensation in the sum of Rs.21,99,780 with interest at
9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realisation. The
insurance company is in appeal questioning the calculation of loss of
dependency on the grounds that future prospects have been wrongly added
to the extent of 30% over and above the income proved and that the
multiplier of 13 has been wrongly adopted disregarding the fact that the
deceased was only 18 days short of completing the age of 51 years.
2. Having heard the counsel on both sides this Court finds no substance
in the first submission concerning the addition of future prospects. The
evidence of PW1, as noted in the impugned judgment, clearly shows that the
deceased was in a regular employment earning emoluments calculated at
Rs.11,800/- on the date of accident. Given the nature of employment in
which he was engaged and the service conditions which have been brought
out, it is clear that his income would have increased over the future years.
3. There is, however, substance in the plea about choice of multiplier.
Given the fact that the deceased was on the verge of completion of 51 years,
the multiplier of 11 should have been the appropriate one for calculating the
loss of dependency since he would fall in the nearest slab for age-group of
51-55. This is the view taken by this Court in MAC.APP.No.636/2009
(Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rekha Vashisht) decided on 18.02.2016.
4. The average annual income of the deceased, after addition of the
element of future prospects to the extent of 30%, comes to Rs.1,84,080/-.
Having regard to the number of dependants, 1/4 th will have to be deducted
towards personal and living expenses of the deceased. Thus, the loss of
dependency comes to (1,84,080 x 3 ÷ 4) Rs.1,38,060/-. On the multiplier of
11, the total loss of dependency comes to Rs.15,18,660/-.
5. The non-pecuniary damages on account of loss of consortium and loss
of love and affection are also found to be on the higher side. Having regard
to the view taken in Rajesh & Ors. v. Rajbir Singh & Ors., (2013) 9 SCC 54,
the appropriate award under the said heads is Rs.1 lakh each. On the other
hand, the award of Rs.20,000/- for loss of estate deserves to be increased to
Rs.25,000/- as per view taken in Shashikala V. Gangalakshmamma (2015) 9
SCC 150.
6. Thus, the total compensation awardable comes to (15,18,660 +
2,50,000) Rs.17,68,660/- rounded off to Rs.17,69,000/- (Rupees Seventeen
Lakhs and Sixty Nine Thousand Only).
7. The Tribunal had apportioned the compensation by specifying the
amounts which would fall to the share of each claimant. Given the facts and
circumstances of the case, apportionment in favour of the first claimant
(Roopwati) is retained, the balance being distributed equally amongst the
remaining with proportionate interest. The award is modified accordingly.
8. By order dated 24.12.2014, the insurance company had been directed
to deposit the entire awarded amount with accumulated interest within six
weeks of order with the Registrar General of this Court. On deposit of the
amount, the Registrar General was directed to release 60% of the amount in
favour of the claimants as per the directions in the award through UCO Bank
Delhi High Court Branch. The balance was allowed to be kept in fixed
deposit with UCO Bank for one year with a provision of renewal.
9. The Registrar General is directed to calculate the shares payable to the
claimants in terms of the above directions and release the same with
proportionate interest in their favour. If there is any short fall, the same
shall be deposited by the insurance company with the Registrar General
within 30 days of today. On the other hand, if excess has been deposited or
released, the same shall be refunded.
10. The statutory amount, if paid, shall also be refunded.
11. The appeal stands disposed of in above terms.
R.K. GAUBA
(JUDGE)
FEBRUARY 29, 2016
VLD
