Delhi High Court
M/S. United India Insurance ... vs Subodh Poddar & Ors. on 9 May, 2016
$~2
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 09.05.2016
+ MAC.APP. 38/2013
M/s. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. ... Appellant
Through: Mr. P.R. Sikka and Mr. Amit Sikka,
Advocates
versus
SUBODH PODDAR & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Amit Kumar Pandey, Adv. for R-1
to 4
Mr. Manoj Kumar for Ms. Arati Mahajan Shedha,
Advocates for R-5 & 6
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT
R.K.GAUBA, J (ORAL):
1. The first to fourth respondents (claimants) instituted an accident claim
case (4/DAR/12) before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (tribunal) on
02.01.2012, in the wake of detailed accident report (DAR) submitted by the
police in the context of the first information report (FIR) no.227/2011 PS
Binda Pur respecting a motor vehicular accident that had occurred on
26.08.2011, wherein Radhey Kumar, 26 years old, a bachelor, had died due
to collision between two motor vehicles including the motorcycle bearing
registration no.DL-4S-BU 6189 (motorcycle) driven by him on one hand
and bus bearing no.DL-1PB- 6497 (bus) of Delhi Transport Corporation
(DTC) on the other. The tribunal initially treated the DAR as a claim
petition under Section 166(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (M.V. Act)
but later, on the application moved on 16.08.2012, treated it as a petition
under Section 163-A of the M.V. Act.
2. The tribunal held inquiry and on that basis, by judgment dated
17.10.2012, returned a finding that death of Radhe Kumar, had occurred in
a motor vehicular accident on account of the use of the DTC bus. It
awarded compensation in the sum of Rs.4,57,833/- with interest at the rate
of 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of the petition till realization and called
upon the insurer to pay. It must be added here that though the tribunal has
assumed the income of the deceased as Rs.40,000/- p.a. on the basis of
second schedule to the M.V. Act, in paragraph 30, it wrongly described the
loss of dependency as 'Rs.26,668/- p.m.' but loss of dependency was
eventually worked out in the sum of Rs.4,53,333/- calculated only on the
basis of the said assumed income of Rs.40,000/- p.a., after deducting 1/3rd
towards personal and living expenses on the multiplier of 17.
3. The insurer which was burdened with the liability to satisfy the award
is in appeal to challenge the same on the grounds that the claim by the three
brothers and sister of the deceased should not have been entertained beyond
what would be available to them under the no-fault liability under Section
140 of the M.V. Act. Reliance is placed on the judgment passed in Smt.
Manjuri Bera V. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., AIR 2007 SC 1474.
4. Given the fact that the claim petition was pressed by the
claimants only under Section 163 A of the M.V. Act, the contentions
raised by the insurer are found to be frivolous and thus, liable to be
dismissed.
5. At the same time, it is noted that the tribunal fell into the error
by applying the multiplier of 17. Given the fact that the deceased was
aged 26 years, the multiplier of 18 would apply, in view of the
prescription in second schedule to the M.V. Act. Therefore, the loss
of dependency is recalculated as ( ₹40,000/- x 2 /3 x 18) ₹4,79,999/-,
rounded off to ₹4,80,000/-. Adding the non-pecuniary damages of
₹4,500/- awarded by the tribunal, the total compensation comes to
(₹4,80,000/- + 4,500/-) ₹4,84,500/-.
6. Following the consistent view taken by this court, the rate of
interest is increased to 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the petition
till realization. [see judgment dated 22.02.2016 in MAC.APP.
165/2011 Oriental Insurance Co Ltd v. Sangeeta Devi & Ors.].
7. In view of the frivolous stand taken by the appellant, the appeal
is disposed of with ₹25,000/- as costs, which shall also be paid to the
claimants.
8. By order dated 14.01.2013, the insurance company had been
directed to deposit the entire awarded amount with accrued interest
with the UCO Bank, Delhi High Court Branch, New Delhi, which
was initially kept in fixed deposit receipt, though, by subsequent order
dated 29.08.2013, 60% was released to the claimants. The Registrar
General shall now take steps to release the balance in deposit. The
insurance company is directed to deposit the balance of its liability
inclusive on account of cost with the tribunal under the modified
award within 30 days. The amount thus deposited shall also be
released to the claimants.
9. The statutory amount shall be refunded only after the award has
been satisfied.
10. The appeal is disposed of in above terms.
R.K. GAUBA
(JUDGE)
MAY 09, 2016
yg
