Delhi High Court
Angoori Devi & Anr. vs Suresh & Ors. on 11 March, 2016
$~2
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 11th March, 2016
+ MAC.APP. 314/2009
ANGOORI DEVI & ANR. ..... Appellants
Through: Mr. Shashank Singh, Adv.
versus
SURESH & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Amit Gaur, Adv. for R-3
WITH
MAC APP. 302/2009
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Amit Gaur, Adv.
Verses
ANGOORI DEVI & ORS.) ... Respondents
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT
R.K.GAUBA, J (ORAL):
1. Both these appeals arise out of judgment dated 30.03.2009 on claim
petition registered as suit no. 838/2006 passed by the motor accident claims
tribunal (the tribunal) on the claim petition presented by the appellants in
MAC appeal no. 314/2009 (hereinafter referred to as "the claimants") under
Sections 166 & 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the MV Act) for
compensation on account of death of their son Nikesh Shokeen, aged 25
years in a motor vehicular accident that occurred at about 02:00/03:00 PM
on 20.06.2006 near Rajoda Bye Pass, involving truck bearing registration
no.MP-06E-1111 (the offending vehicle) which admittedly was insured
against third party risk with the insurance company, which is appellant in
MAC appeal no. 302/2009 (insurer) for the period in question. It may be
added here that the driver and registered owner (insured) in respect of
offending vehicle were impleaded as party respondent but they opted to
suffer the proceedings exparte.
2. The tribunal, on the basis of evidence adduced, concluded that the
deceased would have been contributing `28,00/- for upkeep of his parents
(the claimants). It directed that the said amount of money be paid on
monthly basis to the claimants alongwith `80,000/- awarded under the head
of loss of love & affection to be shared equally by each of them, with further
direction that the amount of compensation to be paid on monthly basis shall
get increased by 25% at the interval of every five years. It may be added
here that by way of earlier order dated 21.11.2007, the tribunal had awarded
`50,000/- under no fault liability clause in Section 140 of the MV Act
apportioning it in equal shares amongst the two claimants. In the final
judgment, there was no direction with regard to adjustment of the said
amount already paid.
3. The claimants preferred MAC appeal no.314/2009 raising grievances
that the compensation had not been properly assessed as the evidence
showing the income of the deceased to be in the region of `8,000/- per
month was wrongly rejected and further that the loss of dependency had not
been worked out on the basis of multiplier. The claimants in their appeal
fairly conceded that the method of monthly payment of compensation
adopted by the tribunal in the impugned judgment is not in accordance with
prevalent law which is precisely one of the contention raised by the
insurance company in its appeal.
4. It is noted that by order dated 03.07.2009 passed in MAC appeal no.
302/2009 of the insurer, the learned single judge then seized of the matter
had directed an amount of `1,00,000/- to be deposited by the appellant with
the Registrar General and for payment of `2800/- per month to be made by
the insurer to the claimants by means of cheques to be remitted by the
registered AD post to them by seventh day of each calendar month. Subject
to compliance being made with the said direction, the execution of the award
granted by the tribunal was stayed.
5. This court does not find any direction in the order dated 03.07.2009
for the amount of `1,00,000/- directed to be deposited that the Registrar
General to be released to the claimants. There is some confusion on record
in that, by order dated 14.12.2009, the learned single judge dealing with the
matter at that stage sought clarification/confirmation as to whether the said
amount of `1,00,000/- had been received by the claimants or not. The
learned counsel on both sides present today are ignorant with regard to the
compliance with the said earlier direction.
6. The directions of the tribunal in the impugned judgment for monthly
compensation to be paid cannot be approved of. The prevalent law requires
the loss of dependency to be computed and, thus, the compensation to be
paid in lump sum to be worked out, inter-alia, by including the suitable
awards under non-pecuniary heads of damages. In these circumstances, the
grievances of both sides are found to be just and proper.
7. Consequently, the impugned judgment is set aside. The matter is
remitted to the tribunal for further inquiry and fresh adjudication. The
parties are directed to appear before the tribunal on 22nd April, 2016.
8. Needless to add, the amounts already received by the claimants,
whether in terms of the interim award in terms of Section 140 of the MV Act
or under the impugned judgment by way of monthly remittances or in terms
of the interim orders by this court, as noted above would need to be suitably
adjusted against amount to be ordered payable as compensation to the
claimants.
9. For removal of doubts, it is clarified that the insurance company will
not hereinafter be obliged to remit any further amount of money to the
claimants. Its liability to pay would arise only after the tribunal has decided
the claim petition afresh.
10. The Registrar General shall ascertain if the amount of `1,00,000/-
mentioned in the aforequoted orders of this court was deposited by the
insurance company in the court or whether it has been released and
communicate the facts to the tribunal for its information and further
necessary action. In case, the said amount is still lying with the court, the
same shall be presently refunded to the insurance company.
11. The statutory deposit, if made, shall be refunded.
12. The appeal is disposed of in above terms.
R.K. GAUBA
(JUDGE)
MARCH 11, 2016
ssc
