Delhi High Court
Reliance General Insurance Co Ltd vs Shyam Sunder Sharma And Ors on 30 March, 2016
$~8
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 30th March, 2016
+ MAC.APP. 726/2012
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD ..... Appellant
Through Mr. P Acharya, Adv. with Ms. Nitika
Chaturvedi, Adv.
versus
SHYAM SUNDER SHARMA AND ORS ..... Respondent
Through Mr. Saleem Akhtar, Adv. for R-1 & 2
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT
R.K.GAUBA, J (ORAL):
1. Vinod Kumar Sharma, 18 years old bachelor, died as a result of
injuries suffered in a motor vehicular accident that occurred on 15.08.2010
involving two motorcycles bearing registration Nos. HR 47A 4884 and RG
18G 2293, both insured against third party risk for the period in question
with Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. (the appellant herein). An
accident claim case MACT No.32/11/10 was brought before the motor
accident claims tribunal (the tribunal) on 26.10.2010 by his father Shyam
Sunder Sharma and younger brother Lakhan Sharma seeking compensation
under Sections 166 and 140 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MV Act). In the
said claim case, the drivers and owners of both the vehicles were impleaded
as respondents in addition to the appellant insurance company (insurer) on
account of its liability to indemnify, it having issued insurance policies
against third party risk in their respect for the period in question.
2. The tribunal held inquiry and on that basis passed judgment dated
29.05.2012 returning finding that the accident had occurred due to
negligence on the part of the driver of both vehicles, each driver having
been held to have contributed to the cause for accident in equal proportions,
and the liability was fastened accordingly. The tribunal assessed the
compensation in the sum of `7,31,384/-, which includes `6,96,384/-
towards loss of dependency besides `25,000/- towards loss of love and
affection and `5,000/- towards cremation expenses and loss of estate. The
insurer being common to both the vehicles was asked to indemnify and pay
the compensation. The insurer had, however, taken the plea of breach of
terms and conditions of the insurance policies which was upheld and, thus,
while being directed to satisfy the award, it was granted right to recover the
compensation, thus paid from the respective drivers and owners of the two
vehicles.
3. By the appeal at hand, the insurer questions the calculation of loss of
dependency on the ground it has been calculated wrongly on the multiplier
of 18, ignoring the fact that the claim primarily was preferred by the father.
This contention must be upheld in the face of the fact that the deceased was
a bachelor. The claimant father (Shyam Sunder Sharma) is present in Court
and on being asked his counsel submitted that his date of birth is
08.12.1961. This would mean that he was 48 years old when the death
occurred. In this view, the loss of dependency is to be calculated on the
multiplier of 13. Since the tribunal found the monthly dependency loss to
be `3,224/- per month. Thus, the total loss of dependency is calculated as
(93,224 x 12 x 13) `5,02,944/- rounded off to `5,03,000/-.
4. The grievance of the claimant is that the non pecuniary damages have
not been adequately awarded. 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 the sum of `1 lakh
on account of loss of love & affection and `25,000/- each towards loss of
estate and funeral expense are added. Thus, the total compensation payable
in the case is computed as (5,03,000 + 1,50,000) `6,53,000/-.
5. It is further contended by the insurance company that in the face of
finding of breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policies, it should
have been exonerated. This contention must be rejected as the interest of
the insurer is duly protected by grant of recovery rights.
6. By order dated 27.07.2012, the insurer had been directed to deposit
the awarded amount with up-to-date interest with UCO Bank, Delhi High
Court branch for the period specified whereupon 50% was allowed to be
released, the balance having been kept in fixed deposit receipt for a period
of six months to be renewed from time to time. The Registrar General shall
now calculate the amount payable to the claimants in terms of the award
modified as above and release the remainder from out of the balance lying
in deposit, refunding the excess to the insurer with statutory deposit, if
made.
7. The appeal is disposed of in above terms.
R.K. GAUBA
(JUDGE)
MARCH 30, 2016
VLD
