Delhi High Court
Dhanno Rani vs National Insurance Co. Ltd. And ... on 10 May, 2016
$~5 & 6
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 6th April, 2016
Corrected as per order dated : 10th May, 2016
+ MAC.APP. 138/2013
DHANNO RANI
..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Anshuman Bal, Adv.
versus
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND ORS. ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. A K Soni, Adv.
+ MAC.APP. 319/2013
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
..... Appellant
Through: Mr. A K Soni, Adv.
versus
DHANNO RANI & ORS. ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Anshuman Bal, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT
R.K.GAUBA, J (ORAL):
1. Uday Chand, aged 44 years, employed as security guard in
government service, concededly on probation at the relevant point of time
(he having been appointed on 07.10.2010), died as a result of injuries
suffered in a motor vehicular accident that occurred at about 6.50 AM on
09.04.2011, statedly due to rash driving of motor vehicle described as
tempo bearing registration No. DL 1V A 7380 (the offending vehicle),
which concededly was insured against third party risk with National
Insurance Company Ltd. (the insurer), appellant in
MAC.APP.No.319/2013. The local police (police station Hazrat
Nizamuddin) had registered first information report (FIR) No.534/2011 and
pursuant to the same submitted a detailed accident report (DAR), the motor
accident claims tribunal (tribunal) treating it as an accident claim case
under Sections 166 and 140 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MV Act) and
holding inquiry. The tribunal eventually passed judgment on 15.11.2012
awarding compensation in the sum of Rs.14,99,160/- with interest at 9%
per annum calculating it thus:
Loss of Dependency Rs.14,69,160/-
Funeral Expenses Rs. 10,000/-
Loss of Consortium Rs. 10,000/-
Loss of Estate Rs. 10,000/-
Total Rs.14,99,160/-
2. The insurer, having admitted its liability to indemnify, was called
upon to satisfy the award. It has come up in appeal
(MAC.APP.No.319/2013) and presses it only to question the addition of
future prospects to the extent of 40%, arguing that since the deceased was
still on probation, the said element could not have been taken on board.
3. Per contra, Dhanno Rani (widow of the deceased) who was the
claimant before the tribunal has come up with appeal
(MAC.APP.No.138/2014) to seek enhancement of the compensation, her
grievances being that the gross salary (Rs.13,500/- i.e. excluding washing
allowance) should have been considered rather than the net salary proved
(Ex.PW2/A); that deduction on account of personal & living expenses to
the tune of 50% was improper as the deceased was a married person; and,
further, that the award under the non-pecuniary heads of damages is
inadequate.
4. The submission of the claimant (appellant in MAC. APP. No.
138/2013) about the income of the deceased must be upheld. There is no
reason why the deductions on account of contributions to provident fund,
general insurance etc. had to be kept out of consideration. Thus, the loss of
dependency has to be worked out on the basis of loss of income of
Rs.13,500/-.
5. The argument of the insurer that future prospects could not have been
added is without substance. The evidence brought before the tribunal, as
duly noted in the impugned judgment, clearly shows that he was in regular
employ of the Government and his income would have risen in the ordinary
course over the future period of service. The mere fact that he was on
probation does not mean the conclusion on this score can be otherwise. But
there is indeed substance in the grievance that such addition could not have
been to the tune of 40%. Since the deceased was 44 years, following the
dictum in Sarla Verma (Smt.) & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation &
Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121, the element of future prospects had to be restricted
to 30% only.
6. The submission of the claimant that the deduction on account of
personal & living expenses should have been to the extent of 1/3 rd because
the deceased was married is unmerited. The fact that the deceased had his
spouse (the claimant) as the sole dependant itself shows that the approach
of the tribunal was correct. Thus, the deduction on account of personal &
living expenses is made to the extent of 50% and consequently loss of
monthly dependency comes to (13,500 ÷ 2) Rs.6,750/-. Adding the
element of future prospects, the loss of dependency comes to (6,750 x 130
÷ 100 x 12 x 14) Rs.14,74,200/-, rounded off to Rs.14,75,000/-.
7. 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 Rs.1 lakh each on account of loss of love &
affection and loss of consortium and Rs.25,000/- each towards loss of
estate and funeral expense are added. Thus, the total compensation payable
in the case is computed as (14,75,000 + 2,50,000) Rs.17,25,000/-.
8. The compensation is enhanced accordingly. Needless to add, it shall
carry interest as levied by the tribunal.
9. In terms of order dated 10.04.2013, the petitioner had deposited the
entire awarded amount with up-to-date interest, out of which 60% was
allowed to be released to the claimant, the balance having been kept in
fixed deposit receipt with UCO Bank, Delhi High Court branch for a period
of six months with periodical renewal.
10. The Registrar General shall now take steps to calculate the amount
payable to the claimant in terms of the above directions and release the
same with proportionate interest in her favour. The insurer shall be
required to pay more since the compensation has been enhanced. It shall do
so within 30 days of today, whereupon the same shall be released to the
claimant.
11. Statutory amount, if deposited, shall be refunded to the insurer.
12. The appeals are disposed of in above terms.
R.K. GAUBA
(JUDGE)
APRIL 06, 2016
VLD
