Delhi High Court
Future Generali India Insurance ... vs Babu Lal And Ors. on 6 May, 2016
$~8
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 06th May, 2016
+ MAC.APP. 159/2013
FUTURE GENERALI INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. .... Appellant
Through: Mr. Pankaj Gupta, Adv. for Ms.
Suman Bagga, Adv.
versus
BABU LAL AND ORS. ....Respondents
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT
R.K.GAUBA, J (ORAL):
1. Sheela Devi, wife of the first respondent and mother of the second to
fifth respondents, died as a result of injuries suffered in a motor vehicular
accident that occurred on 11.09.2012, involving negligent driving of truck
bearing registration no.HR-69A-6922 (the offending vehicle), admittedly
insured against third party risk with the appellant/insurance company (the
insurer) for the period in question. The first to fifth respondents (claimants)
filed accident claim case (suit no.362/2012) on 06.11.2012, in the wake of
detailed accident report (DAR) submitted by the local police on the basis of
evidence gathered during investigation of first information report (FIR) no.
247/2012 of police station Begum Pur which had been registered respecting
the accident.
2. In the proceedings before the tribunal, the insurer was impleaded as a
party in addition to driver and owner of the offending vehicle. The tribunal
held inquiry and, by judgment dated 02.01.2013, returned finding that the
death had occurred due to negligent driving of the offending vehicle. The
same has attained finality as there was no challenge thereto. The tribunal
awarded compensation in the sum of `15,42,000/- with interest at the rate of
nine percent per annum, calling upon the insurer to pay. The said amount
includes `14,97,000/- towards loss of dependency. The loss of dependency
has been calculated on the assumed dependency loss of `8910/- per month
on the multiplier of 14 taking the age of the deceased between 42-45 years.
3. This, as pointed out by the appellant is incorrect as the ration card
(Ex.P-2) proved by the claimants themselves shows the date of birth of
deceased was 04.01.1964. In this view, she was more than 48 years old at
the time of death.
4. Thus, per the dictum in Sarla Verma (Smt.) & Ors. v. Delhi Transport
Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121, the multiplier of 13 would apply.
Therefore, the compensation has to be reduced by (8910x12) `1,06,920/-.
5. Accordingly, the compensation is reduced to (1542000-106920)
`14,35,080/-, rounded off to `14,36,000/-. Needless to add, the award shall
carry interest as levied by the tribunal.
6. The award is modified accordingly.
7. By order dated 18.02.2013, the insurance company had been directed
to deposit the entire awarded amount with up-to-date interest with UCO
Bank, Delhi High Court, New Delhi, out of which 70% was allowed to be
released, the balance kept in FDR for the period specified. It is noted that
the tribunal had apportioned the compensation by specifying the shares of
different claimants. Since the award has been reduced, it is directed that the
share of second to firth respondents shall be restricted to the amounts
already received by them under the interim order, the balance now payable
under the modified award to go in entirety to the first respondent (husband).
8. The Registrar General shall take necessary steps for releasing the
balance to the claimant. The excess and statutory deposit, if made, shall be
refunded.
9. The appeal is disposed of in above terms.
R.K. GAUBA
(JUDGE)
MAY 06, 2016
ssc
