Delhi High Court
Iffco Tokio Gen Ins Co Ltd vs Savita And Ors on 8 March, 2016
$~9
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 8th March, 2016
+ MAC.APP. 1280/2012
IFFCO TOKIO GEN INS CO LTD ..... Appellant
Through: Ms. Shantha Devi Raman and Mr.
Arbaaz Hussai, Advs.
versus
SAVITA AND ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Neetu Singh and Mr. Lalit
Kataria, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT
R.K.GAUBA, J (ORAL):
1. The insurance company is aggrieved with the view taken by the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal (the tribunal) in judgment dated 27.08.2012 passed
on petition under sections 166 and 140 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MV
Act) presented by the first and fifth respondents herein registered as MACT
case No.150/12/10 whereby compensation in the sum of ₹60,40,658/- was
awarded with interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition
(08.07.2010) till deposit on account of death of Ram Kumar in a motor
vehicular accident that occurred on 03.05.2010 involving scooter bearing
registration No.DL 9S AB 4315, admittedly insured against third party risk
with the appellant (insurer) for the period in question. The amount of
compensation awarded included ₹59,10,658/- towards loss of dependency.
It is the calculation of this component which is the bone of contention raised
in the appeal at hand.
2. Before the tribunal, the first claimant (widow) by her own affidavit
(Ex.PW1/A) had proved that the deceased, aged 47 years, was working with
Air India as Lead Assistant drawing salary of ₹35,454/- per month. The
witness proved the salary certificate for the assessment year 2009-2010
(Ex.PW1/6) and the income tax return (ITR) for the said year (Ex.PW1/7).
She also proved copy of the salary certificate for the assessment year 2010-
2011 (Ex.PW1/5). The tribunal adopted the income declared for the
assessment year 2009-2010 as the benchmark to calculate the loss of
dependency. It is pointed out by the appellant that the income for the
assessment year 2010-2011 which was for the immediate year preceding
death was lower than that for the previous year (assessment year 2009-2010).
The argument raised is that the income for the last year should have been the
correct benchmark.
3. It is noted that the insurer during the inquiry made no endeavour to
seek explanation of the witness as to why there had been a reduction in the
income for the assessment year 2010-2011 as compared to what had been
earned during the assessment year 2009-2010. It is shown by evidence that
the deceased was in regular employ of Air India. The dip in income for
assessment year 2010-2011 could have been for any reason other than what
is now being conjectured as the possible reasons to raise the argument that
the income of the deceased should be calculated on that basis. This Court
does not find any substance in the grievance raised.
4. The claimants included the widow, two children, aged father and
mother. The name of the father is described as Captain Bhim Singh. On the
basis of this, the insurance company submits that the father and mother
could not have been brought in as dependents. Mere use of the description
"Captain" cannot lead to the inference that the father would be financially
self-reliant. No inquiry was made by the insurance company to ascertain the
financial status of the father or mother. In absence of such inquiry, the
argument raised cannot be accepted.
5. Thus, the appeal is devoid of substance and is liable to be dismissed.
6. By order dated 17.12.2012, the insurance company had been directed
to deposit 60% of the awarded amount with proportionate interest with the
Tribunal within six weeks. The said amount was allowed to be released to
the claimants. The insurance company is now directed to deposit the balance
within 30 days whereupon the same shall be released.
7. Statutory deposit, if made, shall be refunded.
8. The appeal is disposed of in above terms.
R.K. GAUBA
(JUDGE)
MARCH 08, 2016
VLD
