Delhi High Court
Reliance General Insurance Co Ltd vs Suresh Kumar & Ors on 9 May, 2016
$~23
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 09th May, 2016
+ MAC.APP. 896/2014
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Rajeev M. Roy, Adv.
versus
SURESH KUMAR & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Sunil Kr. Verma, Adv. for R-1 &
2.
Mr. C. P. Malik, Adv. for R-3 & 4.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT
R.K.GAUBA, J (ORAL):
1. Renu Bai, employed as a constable in Delhi Police, a bachelor aged
23 years at the relevant point of time, died in a motor vehicular accident that
occurred on 08.05.2011, involving negligent driving of a motor vehicle
described as a tractor Eicher bearing registration no.HR-05M-2466 (the
offending vehicle) in which respect the appellant/insurance company (the
insurer) had admittedly issued an insurance policy against third party risk for
the period in question. Her parents (first & second respondents/the
claimants) instituted an accident claim case (MACP petition no.34/2012) on
03.02.2012 seeking compensation impleading the insurer, driver and owner
of the offending vehicle, as the respondents.
2. The tribunal, on inquiry, by judgment dated 14.07.2014, upheld the
case of death having occurred due to negligent driving of the offending
vehicle. This finding has attained finality as it was never challenged further.
The tribunal awarded compensation in the sum of `29,40,516/- which
includes `1,35,000/- under various heads of non-pecuniary damages and
`28,05,516/- towards loss of dependency and directed the insurer to pay the
same with interest in favour of the claimants.
3. The insurer had also pleaded before the tribunal that the insurance
policy for the period in question had been issued against a document which
was found to be forged insurance policy for the preceding period. On this
plea, the insurance company prayed for exoneration. This was rejected.
4. By appeal at hand, the insurance company questions the calculation of
loss of dependency on the ground that it has been wrongly calculated with
the multiplier of 18 on the basis of age of the deceased, ignoring the fact that
the claim had been preferred by the parents in the case of death of a
bachelor. It is pointed out that the age of the claimant father, per the
photocopy of the election identity card (Ex.PW1/3) as on 01.01.2006 was 40
years while that of the mother per the election identity card (Ex.PW1/4) as
on 01.01.2006 was 39 years. This would mean that the father and mother of
the deceased would be 45 & 44 years respectively as on the date of accident.
Thus, average age would be less than 45 years. Therefore, the multiplier of
14 would apply. The insurer also reiterates its plea for exoneration or the
recovery rights.
5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, dependency
loss has to be calculated after deducting 50% towards personal and living
expenses assessed at income of `17318/- per month and on the multiplier of
14. It, however, cannot be ignored that the deceased was a young person
who had a long future career lying ahead. Since she was in government
employment, progressive rise in income was part of the terms of her
engagement. Thus, the element of future prospects of increase to the extent
of 50% deserves to be added. Therefore, the dependency loss comes to
(17318x150/100/2x12x14) `21,82,068/-, rounded off to `21,83,000/-.
Adding the other damages awarded by the tribunal, the total compensation
payable in the case comes to (21,83,000+1,35,000) `23,18,000/-.
6. It is noted that the tribunal had awarded interest at the rate of seven &
half percent (7.5%) per annum. Following the consistent view taken by this
Court [see judgment dated 22.02.2016 in MAC.APP. 165/2011 Oriental
Insurance Co Ltd v. Sangeeta Devi & Ors.], the rate of interest is increased
to 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization.
7. Coming to the plea for exoneration or recovery rights, all that needs to
be said in this regard is that fabrication of a document purporting to be an
insurance policy for earlier period cannot render the insurance cover issued
for relevant period inoperative. Therefore, the plea is rejected.
8. By order dated 28.10.2014, the insurance company had been directed
to deposit the entire awarded amount with accumulated interest with the
Registrar General within the period specified whereupon 50% was allowed
to be released in favour of the claimants, the balance kept in FDR in UCO
Bank, Delhi High Court branch, New Delhi. The Registrar General shall
now calculate the amount payable to the claimants in terms of the award
modified as above and release the same from out of the balance, refunding
excess in deposit, if any, with statutory deposit, if made, to the insurer.
Conversely, if any further amount requires to be paid, the insurance
company shall be obliged to deposit the same with the tribunal within 30
days making it available to be released.
9. The appeal is disposed of in above terms.
R.K. GAUBA
(JUDGE)
MAY 09, 2016
ssc
