Delhi High Court
Future Generali India Insurance ... vs Smt Krishna Devi & Ors. on 2 May, 2016
$~12
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 02nd May, 2016
+ MAC.APP. 955/2013
FUTURE GENERALI INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.
..... Appellant
Through: Ms. Suman Bagga and Mr. Pankaj
Gupta, Advs.
versus
SMT KRISHNA DEVI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Amandeep Kaur and Ms.
Aishwarya Saluja, Advs. for R-1
Mr. Sandeep Gupta, Adv. for R-3 & 4
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT
R.K.GAUBA, J (ORAL):
1. Sunil Lakra, aged 30 years suffered injuries in a motor vehicular
accident that occurred on 26.06.2012 involving negligent driving of truck
bearing registration No.UP 17C 5190 (offending vehicle) and died as a
result. His wife and minor son (first and second respondents) instituted an
accident claim case (MACT no.260/12) on 21.09.2012, on their behalf and
on behalf of third and fourth respondents (collectively described hereinafter
as "the claimants"). In the claim petition, the appellant insurance company
(insurer) was impleaded as a respondent in addition to the driver and owner
of the offending vehicle. The tribunal held inquiry and, by judgment dated
24.09.2013, upheld the case that the death had occurred due to negligent
driving of the offending vehicle. It awarded compensation in the sum of
25,80,000/- calculating it thus :
Pecuniary damages :
1) Loss of dependency -------------- Rs. 22,95,000/-
2) Funeral charges -------------- Rs. 25,000/-
3) Loss of Estate -------------- Rs. 10,000/-
4) Loss of consortium -------------- Rs. 1,00,000/-
5) Loss of love, company and affection etc. ----------- Rs. 1,00,000/-
6) Loss of gratuitous services ------------ Rs. 50,000/-
Total = Rs. 25,80,000/-
2. The insurer was directed to satisfy the above mentioned award with
interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition.
3. The insurance company, by the appeal at hand, questions the
assumption of the tribunal that the income of the deceased was `15,000/- per
month. Having heard both sides and having gone through the tribunal's
record, this Court finds substance in the contention of the insurance
company.
4. It had been claimed before the tribunal that the deceased was engaged
in a business of property dealing and earning `25,000/- per month. The
tribunal assumed the income of `15,000/- per month. There is no basis to
the said conclusion. The returning of finding with reference to some other
case, without discussion of its facts or drawing a parallel, was not correct,
particularly where the tribunal also noted that the petitioners had failed to
produce any proof of occupation, income or even educational qualifications.
5. In these circumstances, there is no escape from calculation being
made as to loss of dependency on the basis of minimum wages (`7,020/- per
month). Since the number of dependants was more than four, the personal
& living expenses have to be deducted to the extent of 1/4th and keeping in
view the age of the deceased, the multiplier of 17 would apply. Therefore,
the loss of dependency is recomputed as (7,020 x 3 ÷ 4 x 12 x 17)
`10,74,060/- rounded off to `10,75,000/-.
6. It is noted that the tribunal awarded the non-pecuniary damages which
are not in accord with the awards being made in such cases. 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 each on account of loss of love & affection and loss of
consortium and `25,000/- each towards loss of estate and funeral expense
are added. Thus, the total compensation payable in the case is computed as
(10,75,000+ 2,50,000) `13,25,000/-.
7. The award is modified accordingly. It shall carry interest as levied by
the tribunal.
8. The tribunal apportioned the award by specifying the amounts in
favour of the respective claimants. By order dated 25.10.2013, the insurance
company had been directed to deposit the entire awarded amount with the
Registrar General within the period specified and upon such deposit made
80% was allowed to be released in terms of the impugned judgment, the
balance kept in fixed deposit receipt with UCO Bank, Delhi High Court
branch initially for a period of six months to be renewed periodically.
9. In the given facts where the award has been modified, it is directed
that the amounts already released in favour of second to fourth respondents
shall be treated as their shares. The balance, if any, under the modified
award, shall be payable only to the first respondent (the wife).
10. The Registrar General shall now calculate the sums payable to the
claimant and release the same with proportionate interest in her favour in
terms of the aforementioned direction, refunding excess, if any, with
statutory deposit, if made, to the insurer.
11. The appeal is disposed of in above terms.
R.K. GAUBA
(JUDGE)
MAY 02, 2016
VLD
