Delhi High Court
National Insurance Co Ltd vs Bhagirath & Ors on 9 May, 2016
$~22
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 09.05.2016
+ MAC.APP. 877/2014 and CM No.16105/2014
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Sanjay Rawat, Advocate
versus
BHAGIRATH & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. R.R. Ahlawat, Adv. for R-5&6
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT
R.K.GAUBA, J (ORAL):
1. Panchi Devi, wife of the first respondent and mother of the second to
fourth respondent (collectively, claimants) died as a result of the injuries
suffered in a motor vehicular accident that occurred on 30.10.2011 involving
the negligent driving of a Santro car bearing registration no.HR-07F-6074
(offending vehicle) which was admittedly insured against third party risk
with the appellant insurance company (insurer) for the period in question.
2. On the accident claim petition (case no.697/2014) being preferred by
the claimants on 20.12.2011, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (tribunal)
held inquiry and on that basis, by judgment dated 25.06.2014, upheld the
case that death had occurred due to the negligent driving of the offending
vehicle which finding has attained finality as it was not challenged.
3. By the said judgment, the tribunal awarded compensation in the sum
of ₹7,39,328/- with interest in favour of the claimants, calculating it thus :
1. Loss of dependency ₹4,19,328/-
2. Loss of consortium ₹1,00,000/-
3. Funeral charges ₹25,000/-
4. Loss of estate ₹10,000/-
5. Loss of love and affection ₹1,00,000/-
6. Reimbursement of medical bills ₹85,000/-
TOTAL ₹7,39,328/-
4. The insurer who was asked to satisfy the award is in appeal
questioning the computation on the ground that the deceased was a house
wife and therefore, the method of calculating the loss of dependency is
improper. It is noted that the tribunal assumed the income of the deceased at
₹6,656/- it being the amount of minimum wages payable to unskilled worker
on the date of the accident. This approach cannot be faulted. The tribunal
found on the basis of election identity card (Ex. PW1/4) that the deceased
was 63 years old in 2009. This would mean her age at the time of accident
was 65 years, and so the tribunal applied the multiplier of 7 and rightly so, in
view of the judgment in Sarla Verma (Smt.) & Ors. v. Delhi Transport
Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121.
5. The tribunal calculated the loss of dependency by deducting 1/4th
towards personal and living expenses. This was erroneous. All the three
children (second to fourth respondents) having turned major, cannot be said
to be financially dependent upon the deceased. In these circumstances,
deduction to the extent of 50% should have been made.
6. Therefore, the dependency loss is recomputed as (₹6656 / 2 x 12 x 7
₹2,79,552/-), rounded off to ₹2,80,000/-. The award under the other heads
of compensation as granted by the tribunal cannot be faulted. In the result,
the total compensation payable in the case comes to (₹2,80,000/- +
₹1,00,000/- + ₹25,000/- + ₹10,000/- + ₹1,00,000/- + ₹85,000/-)
₹6,00,000/-.
7. The award is modified accordingly. Needless to add, it shall carry
interest as levied by the tribunal.
8. By order dated 24.09.2014, the insurance company had been directed
to deposit the entire awarded amount with accumulated interest with the
Registrar General of this court, within the period specified, from which 50%
was allowed to be released to the claimants, the balance kept in fixed deposit
receipts. Since the award has been reduced, it is directed that the entire
amount already released to the second to fourth respondents shall be treated
as their share in the compensation awarded, the entire balance being payable
to the first respondent (husband) alone.
9. The statutory amount, if deposited, shall be refunded.
10. The appeal and the pending application are disposed of in above
terms.
R.K. GAUBA
(JUDGE)
MAY 09, 2016
yg
