Delhi High Court
Roshni Devi & Ors vs Narata Ram & Ors on 8 March, 2016
$~ 1& 2
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 08th March, 2016
+ MAC.APP. 31/2006
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Pankaj Seth, Adv.
versus
ROSHNI DEVI & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Aruna Metha, Adv. for R-1 to 7.
+ MAC.APP. 238-44/2006
ROSHNI DEVI & ORS ..... Appellants
Through: Ms. Aruna Metha, Adv.
versus
NARATA RAM & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Pankaj Seth, Adv. for R-3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT
R.K.GAUBA, J (ORAL):
1. Rajpal Singh (the deceased), working as a Constable in the Railway
Protection Force (RPF) posted at Ambala, Haryana, suffered death due to
injuries sustained in a motor vehicular accident that occurred at about 9 p.m.
on 26.10.96, involving a truck bearing No. PNQ 3793 (the offending
vehicle) admittedly insured against third party risk for the period in question
with New India Assurance Company Ltd. (insurer) which was impleaded as
party respondent to the claim petition that came to be filed in this context
before the motor accident claims tribunal (the tribunal) under Sections 140
& 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MV Act), it being registered as Suit
No. 182/2005. It may be added that, as per the claim case submitted before
the tribunal, the truck was driven by one Narata Ram (who was impleaded
as first respondent before the tribunal). It was registered in the name of
Amar Singh, who, it was proved on the basis of admissions, had sold it in
favour of Gurmeet Singh (impleaded as respondent No.2-A before the
tribunal) before the date of accident though it was mutated in the name of
the latter subsequently.
2. The tribunal, upon inquiry, awarded compensation in the sum of Rs.
9,40,000/- in favour of the claimants with interest from the date of filing of
the petition till realization. The insurance company had claimed that it was
not liable since the driver Narata Ram was holding a document in the name
of driving license (Ex.R3W1/5) which, upon verification, was found to be
fake. The tribunal upheld the said contention and following the law laid
down in National Insurance Company V. Swaran Singh (2004) 3 SCC 297
while directing the insurer to pay the amount of compensation awarded,
granted recovery rights to it against respondent No.2(A) (Gurmeet Singh),
the transferee and the then owner of the offending vehicle.
3. Both the claimants and the insurer have come up by way of separate
appeals. The insurer contends that the loss of dependency has not been
properly calculated since the multiplier applied was wrong. It also contends
that the deduction towards personal & living expenses should have been to
the extent of 1/4th, in view of the dictum in Sarla Verma (Smt.) & Ors. v.
Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121. The claimants, on
the other hand submit that future prospects should have been appropriately
calculated and that the award under the non-pecuniary heads of damages
namely loss of consortium, loss of love & affection and funeral rites are
unduly low.
4. It is noted that claimants had proved salary certificate (Ex.PW1/1) of
the deceased. The depositions of PW-1 and 2 also show that the deceased
was earning total emoluments in the sum of Rs. 4,043/- from his
employment as Constable in RPF. Given the nature of job in which he was
engaged, the method of calculating the financial dependency as adopted by
the tribunal seems to be improper. The tribunal also committed an error by
increasing the amount of financial dependency to the extent of double to
work out the loss of dependency on the multiplier of 18. The future
prospects may be added only to the extent of 50% and the multiplier of 15 is
the appropriate one in view of rule in Sarla Verma (supra).
5. Thus, the loss of dependency needs to be recomputed. Having regard
to the fact that the deceased left behind 7 family members as dependants
1/5th towards personal and living expenses has to be deducted. Factoring in
the element of future prospects, the dependency is to be calculated on the
basis of notional income at (4,043 X 150/100) Rs. 6,065/- per month. On
deduction of 1/5th , the monthly loss of dependency is (6,065 X 4/5) Rs.
4,852/-. On the multiplier of 15, the total loss of dependency is (4,852 X 12
X 15) Rs. 8,73,360/- rounded off to Rs. 8, 74,000/-.
6. In Madhu Marwaha & Anr. Vs. Dal Chand & Anr. in FAO 102/2001
decided by this Court on 1st February, 2016, non-pecuniary damages in the
sum of Rs. 50,000/- each on account of loss of consortium and loss of love
& affection and Rs.10,000/- each on account of funeral expenses and loss of
estate were awarded. A similar award in the present case deserves to be
made. Therefore, the total compensation awardable in the case is calculated
at (Rs.8,74,000 + 1,20,000) Rs. 9,93,360/- rounded off to Rs. 9,94,000/-.
The compensation is enhanced accordingly.
7. The tribunal had apportioned the compensation awarded by it
specifying the amounts to be given to the respective claimants. In these
facts and circumstances, it is directed that the entire enhanced portion of
compensation with proportionate interest shall be paid to the first claimant
(widow).
8. By order dated 18.01.2006, in MAC Appeal No. 31/2006, the
insurance company had been directed to deposit Rs. 8 lakhs with
proportionate interest with the tribunal, was to be released to the claimants
in terms of the impugned award. The insurance company is directed to
deposit the balance, with the tribunal within 30 days of this judgment
whereupon it shall be released in terms of the impugned judgment modified
as above. Needless to add, the recovery rights granted to the insurer may be
enforced by it by initiating appropriate proceedings before the tribunal.
9. Statutory deposit, if made, shall be refunded.
10. The appeals stand disposed of in above terms.
R.K. GAUBA
(JUDGE)
MARCH 08, 2016
nk
