Delhi High Court
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Veer Singh & Ors. on 3 June, 2016
$~3
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 03.06.2016
+ MAC.APP. 733/2014 & CM Nos.13073/2014, 22707/2016
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. ..... Appellant
Through Mr. R K Tripathi, Adv.
versus
VEER SINGH & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Zafar Sadique and Ms. Sunita
Kumari, Advs. for R-1
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT
R.K.GAUBA, J (ORAL):
1. Mukesh Kumar, aged 36 years, a bachelor, died in a motor vehicular
accident that occurred on 09.06.2012 at about 11.30 PM on account of
negligent driving of motor vehicle bearing registration No.NL 02 D 6760
(offending vehicle), admittedly insured against third party risk with the
appellant insurance company (insurer). His father, a widower (claimant)
(now the first respondent in appeal) filed an accident claim case (suit
No.437/12) on 17.12.2012 seeking compensation under Sections 166 & 140
of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MV Act) impleading the insurer as a party
respondent, in addition to driver and owner of the offending vehicle. On the
basis of inquiry, the tribunal, by judgment dated 09.07.2014, upheld the case
of death having occurred due to negligent driving of the offending vehicle.
It awarded compensation in the sum of Rs.12,82,500/- with interest at 9%
per annum in favour of the claimant after directing the insurance company
to pay.
2. The appeal at hand was filed by the insurance company to challenge
the abovementioned award. By order dated 03.03.2016, it was directed to
be shown in the regular list to come up on its own turn. On application (CM
No.22707/2016) being moved by the first respondent (claimant) seeking
early hearing, the file has been taken up today and with the consent of both
the counsel for the appellant and the counsel for the respondent, the appeal
is taken up for final hearing and disposal today itself.
3. During the course of arguments on the appeal, it is pressed by the
insurer on two grounds; one, that the claimant father was not a dependent
and, two, that the tribunal fell into error by adding the factor of future
prospects of increase without any evidence showing possibility of
progressive rise in income.
4. The arguments on both sides having been heard and the record of the
tribunal having been perused, this Court finds both the contentions to be
unmerited and thus liable to be repelled.
5. The claimant father is on record in his deposition as PW1, on the
strength of his affidavit (Ex.PW1/A) that the deceased was contributing his
entire income to the family which included an unmarried sister and a
handicapped brother. It is noted that in spite of having reached the age of
36, the deceased was still unmarried. He had lost his mother earlier and was
burdened with responsibilities towards not only his aging father but also his
junior siblings. In these circumstances, the objection to the financial
dependency must be rejected.
6. While it is true that the father appearing as PW1 was unable to
produce any document in the nature of educational qualification of the
deceased or appointment letter where-under he was employed, the evidence
of Vijay Kumar Barik (PW2), Executive (HR) V-Link Fleet Solutions Pvt.
Ltd. leaves no room for doubt that the deceased was employed as a
supervisor with the said company since 01.10.2011. It does appear that the
period of employment with the said company was less than one year. But
this does not mean that the deceased would not be entitled to any
progressive rise in income. Given the nature of his employment with the
said company, as brought out clearly by the evidence of PW2, inter alia, on
the basis of pay slip (Ex.PW1/6) for the month of May, 2012, it is inherent
in the terms and conditions of this engagement that he would be entitled to
incremental increase in salary and allowances over the period. Thus, the
inclusion of element of future prospects of increase on such irrefutable
evidence cannot be grudged. [see judgment dated 28.03.2016 in MAC.APP.
548/2013 United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kamla & Ors.]
7. In above view, the appeal is dismissed.
8. By order dated 12.08.2014, the insurance company had been directed
to deposit entire awarded amount with accumulated interest with the
Registrar General within the period specified and out of such deposit 50%
was allowed to be released to the claimant, the balance kept in fixed deposit
receipt with UCO Bank, Delhi High Court branch with provision for
renewal. The balance lying in fixed deposit shall also now be released to
the claimant in terms of the judgment of the tribunal.
9. Statutory amount, if made, shall be refunded.
(R.K. GAUBA)
JUDGE
JUNE 03, 2016
VLD
