Delhi High Court
The New India Assurance Co Ltd vs Shri Uday Singh And Ors on 10 May, 2016
$~11
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 10th May, 2016
+ MAC.APP. 712/2013 with CM nos.12021/2013, 12024/2013
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Pankaj Seth, Adv.
versus
SHRI UDAY SINGH AND ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Alok Sharma, Adv. for R-1 & 2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT
R.K.GAUBA, J (ORAL):
1. Radhey Shyam, aged 22 years, died as a result of injuries suffered in a
motor vehicular accident that occurred on 02.11.2008 involving negligent
driving of bus bearing registration no.DL-1PA-8070 (the offending vehicle)
admittedly insured against third party risk with the appellant/insurance
company (the insurer) for the period in question. His parents, aged 52 and
47 years (first and second respondents/the claimants respectively), instituted
an accident claim case (MACP no.34/2008) on 06.12.2008 seeking
compensation. The tribunal held inquiry and, by judgment dated
22.02.2011, upheld the case that the death had occurred due to negligent
driving of the offending vehicle. This finding has attained finality as it was
not challenged. The insurer which was impleaded as a party respondent was
burdened with the liability to pay the compensation by the said judgment
assessed in the sum of `3,04,852/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per
annum. It appears that in the said judgment particulars of the case were
wrongly mentioned. Pointing this out and also submitting that the multiplier
had been wrongly adopted according to the age of the claimants and certain
amount under non-pecuniary heads of damages had not been included in the
final computation, an application for review was filed which was allowed by
the tribunal by order dated 20.07.2011 raising the award to `4,40,372/- with
interest.
2. By appeal at hand, the insurer challenged the judgment and the order
mentioned above submitting that the multiplier should have been adopted as
per the age of the claimants.
3. Having regard to the settled law on this subject, the multiplier of 13
had been correctly chosen by the tribunal in the judgment dated 22.02.2011
[G.M. Kerela SRTC vs Susamma Thomas (1994) 2 SCC 176 and
U.P.S.R.T.C. vs Trilok Chandra (1996) 4 SCC 362). At the same time, it is
noted that the awards under non-pecuniary heads of damages and rate of
interest levied are inadequate. Thus, compensation is recalculated.
4. On the notional income of `1842/- calculated after deducting personal
and living expenses, and on the multiplier of 13, the loss of dependency
comes to (1842x12x13) `2,87,352/-, rounded off to `2,90,000/-.
5. Following the view taken in Rajesh & Ors. v. Rajbir Singh & Ors.,
(2013) 9 SCC 54 and Shashikala V. Gangalakshmamma (2015) 9 SCC 150,
the award in the sum of `1,00,000/- on account of loss of love & affection
and `25,000/- each towards loss of estate and funeral expense are added.
Thus, the total compensation payable in the case is computed as (2,90,000+
1,50,000) `4,40,000/-.
6. 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. It was noted in the order dated 14.08.2013 that the entire amount
awarded by the judgment dated 22.02.2011 had been deposited with the
tribunal. The enforcement of the award under the review order, however,
was stayed. The insurance company shall now deposit the balance of its
liability in terms of the modified award within 30 days with the tribunal
whereupon it shall be released to the claimant.
8. The appeal (with applications) is disposed of in above terms.
R.K. GAUBA
(JUDGE)
MAY 10, 2016
ssc
