Delhi High Court
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Sunita Chopra & Ors. on 14 March, 2016
$~8
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 14th March, 2016
+ MAC APPEAL No.665/2012 & CM No. 10908/2012
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. .... Appellant
Through: Mr. J.P. N. Shahi, Adv.
Versus
SUNITA CHOPRA & ORS. .... Respondents
Through: Mr. Awnish Kumar, Adv. for R-4.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT
R.K.GAUBA, J (ORAL):
1. Dhruv Chopra, then aged 22 years, died in a motor vehicular accident
that occurred at about 9.00 p.m. on 15.05.2006 involving truck bearing No.
HR 38D 0304 (the offending vehicle) which was admittedly insured against
third party risk with the appellant insurance company (insurer). The first and
second respondents (hereinafter referred to as the claimants), the parents of
the deceased preferred a claim petition under Sections 166 and 140 of Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 (MV Act) on 08.04.2009, which was registered as
MACT Petition No. 181/2009. The third and fourth respondents herein, the
driver and owner/insured in respect of the offending vehicle were impleaded
as parties to the claim petition, in addition to the insurer. The tribunal, by
judgment dated 04.04.2012 granted compensation in the sum of ₹ 7,05,684/-
with interest calculated the compensation as under:-
(a) Claim towards compensation : ₹6,53, 184/-
(b) Claim towards Funeral expenses : ₹ 7,500/-
(c) Loss of Estate : ₹ 10,000/-
(d) Loss of consortium/love affection: ₹ 35,000/-
Total : ₹ 7,05,684/-
2. The insurance company had inter alia taken the plea that there had
been a breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy as the driver of
the offending vehicle was not authorized to drive the transport vehicle in
question carrying hazardous goods. This contention was upheld and the
insurance company, though directed to pay the compensation to the
claimants was granted recovery rights against fourth respondent herein (the
owner/insured).
3. The insurer by the appeal at hand, challenges the computation of
compensation mainly on the ground that the element of future prospects was
wrongly added and the multiplier of 18 was wrongly adopted on the basis of
age of the deceased (22 years) ignoring the fact that the claimants are parents
(whose average age was 44 years), in the case of compensation for
bachelor's death.
4. The claimants had submitted before the tribunal that the deceased was
working with a private company M/s SRS Human Resources Pvt. Ltd. with
salary of ₹ 13,000/- per month. The document purporting to be salary
certificate, was produced on record (mark A), but the tribunal was not
satisfied as no formal evidence was adduced. In these circumstances, the
tribunal adopted ₹ 3,024/-/- as the notional monthly wages on the basis of
minimum wages payable to a graduate at the relevant point of time. It,
however, proceeded to compute the compensation by adding the element of
future prospects. The insurance company contends that this was
impermissible as there was no proof of progressive increase in the income.
5. On careful appraisal of evidence on record, this Court finds no
substance in the contention urged. The evidence adduced by the claimants
includes the statement of Mukesh Chopra (PW-2) on the strength of his
affidavit (PW -2/1) which indicated the salary structure of the company
where the deceased was an employee. Given such material on record and the
educational qualifications of the deceased, it cannot be believed that his
income would not have increased progressively in future. Thus, no error is
found in calculation of the income with element of future prospects having
been factored in.
6. There is, however, merit in the contention with regard to the
multiplier. The accident had occurred on 15.05.2006. As per the voter
identity card (page 163 of the tribunal's record) of the father (second
respondent) he was 38 years old on 18.10.95 which would mean his age
would be 49 years when the death occurred. According to the voter identity
card (page 165 of the tribunal's record) of the mother (first respondent) she
was 32 years on 20.4.95. This would mean that she would be 43 years old at
the time of the death. The average age of the parents, thus, was 46 years. It
is well-settled that the age of the deceased, or that of the surviving
dependants, whichever is higher, has to be the basis for adopting the
multiplier [G.M. Kerela SRTC vs Susamma Thomas (1994) 2 SCC 176;
U.P.S.R.T.C. vs Trilok Chandra (1996) 4 SCC 362; New India Assurance Co.
Ltd. vs Charlie AIR 2005 SC 2157; New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Shanti
Pathak (Smt.) & Ors., (2007) 10 SCC 1; Ramesh Singh & Anr. vs Satbir
Singh & Anr. (2008) 2 SCC 667; National Insurance Company Ltd. vs Shyam
Singh & Ors. (2011) 7 SCC 65; Ashwinbhai Jayantilal Modi vs Ramkaran
Ramchandra Sharma & Anr. (2015) 2 SCC 180]
7. Thus, the loss of dependency has to be worked out on the basis of
multiplier of 13 rather than 18 as done by the tribunal. In this view, the loss
of dependency is calculated as (3,023 X 12 X 13) ₹ 4,71,588/- rounded off
to ₹ 4,72,000/-.
8. It is noted that the tribunal awarded ₹ 7,500/- towards funeral
expenses, ₹10,000/- towards loss of estate, ₹ 35,000/- towards loss of
consortium/love & affection. In a case of bachelor where the compensation
has been claimed by the parents, there was no occasion for use of the
expression "loss of consortium". Following the view taken in Rajesh &
Ors. v. Rajbir Singh & Ors., (2013) 9 SCC 54 and Shashikala V.
Gangalakshmamma (2015) 9 SCC 150, compensation in sum of ₹ 1,00,000/-
towards loss of love & affection and ₹25,000/- towards funeral expenses and
loss to estate would have been appropriate. Therefore, the compensation in
the case at hand is re-calculated as ₹ (4,72,000 + 1,00,000 + 25,000 +
25,000) ₹ 6,22,000/-.
9. The compensation is reduced accordingly. It shall carry interest as
levied by the tribunal.
10. By order dated 03.07.2012, the insurance company had been directed
to deposit the awarded compensation with upto date interest in the name of
the claimants with UCO Bank, Delhi High Court branch whereupon the
recovery by execution was stayed. The amount thus deposited was directed
to be kept in a fixed deposit initially for a period of six months to be renewed
from time to time. Registrar General is directed to calculate the amounts
payable to the claimants in terms of the award modified as above and release
the same to the claimants, refunding the balance to the insurance company
with statutory deposit, if made.
11. The appeal stands disposed of in above terms.
R.K. GAUBA
(JUDGE)
MARCH 14, 2016
nk
