Delhi High Court
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Monica & Ors on 16 May, 2016
$~R-94 & R-95
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 16th May, 2016
+ MAC.APP. 645/2007
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Pankaj Seth, Advocate
versus
MONICA & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Gagan Mathur and Mr. Varun
Kumar, Advocates
+ MAC.APP. 684/2007 and CM No.16488/2007
MONICA SAXENA AND ANR. ..... Appellants
Through: Mr. Gagan Mathur and Mr. Varun
Kumar, Advocates
versus
RAM BIR SINGH AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Pankaj Seth, Adv. for R-3
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
MAC APP. Nos.645 & 684/2007 Page 1 of 5
JUDGMENT
R.K.GAUBA, J (ORAL):
1. Manish Saxena, then 35 years old, died as a result of the injuries
suffered in a motor vehicular accident that occurred on 27.11.2001 when a
motor cycle bearing registration no.DL-3S-2516 (motor cycle) driven by
him was hit from the rear side by a bus bearing registration no.DL-IP-5873
(offending vehicle), the latter admittedly insured against third party risk with
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (appellant in MAC A 645/2007). His wife and
minor child (appellants in MAC A 684/2007) instituted an accident claim
case (petition no.515/2004, old suit no.329/02) on 04.06.2002 seeking
compensation under Sections 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988,
impleading the insurer, driver and owner of the offending vehicle / bus as
respondents, in addition to the parents of the deceased.
2. The tribunal held inquiry and, by judgment dated 19.07.2007, upheld
the case that death had occurred due to negligent driving of the bus. This
finding has attained finality as it was not challenged further. By the said
judgment, the tribunal awarded Rs.7,45,000/- as compensation with interest
at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the petition till realization,
the said amount being inclusive Rs.7,20,000/- towards dependency loss,
Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.20,000/- towards loss of love
and affection.
3. The insurer which was burdened with the liability to pay has come up
with the appeal (MACA 645/2007) questioning the computation of
compensation.
4. By their appeal (MACA 684/2007), the claimants seek enhancement
of the compensation. It may be added here that during the pendency of these
appeals, the mother of the deceased has expired and on the applications (CM
15091-92/2008), her legal heirs including the claimants before the tribunal
were substituted. It is noted that the tribunal had found the income of the
deceased to be Rs.6,000/- and on that basis computed the loss of dependency
at Rs.4,000/- p.m. The tribunal applied the multiplier of 15. The claimants
are also aggrieved with the choice of multiplier and relies upon Sarla Verma
(Smt.) & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121.
5. The insurer presses its appeal to question the choice of multiplier
submitting that 12 would have been the appropriate multiplier in terms of
the judgment of the Supreme Court in Managing Director, TNSTC Ltd. Vs.
K.I. Bindu & Ors., 2006 ACJ 423 and UPSRTC Vs. Krishna Bala and Ors.,
2006 ACJ 2114.
6. Having regard to the ruling in Sarla Verma (supra) which now
governs the field, it is found that the dependency loss had to be calculated on
the multiplier of 16. Thus, the loss of dependency comes to (Rs.4,000 x 12
x 16) Rs.7,68,000/-.
7. Having regard to the date of death, following the view taken by this
court in Madhu Marwaha & Anr vs. Dal Chand & Anr., FAO 102/2001,
decided on 01.02.2016, which is referred by the counsel for the claimants,
the non-pecuniary damages in the sum of Rs.50,000/- each towards loss of
consortium and loss of love and affection and Rs.10,000/- each towards
funeral expenses and loss to estate are added. Thus, the total compensation
in the case comes to (Rs.7,68,000/- + Rs.1,20,000) Rs.8,88,000/-.
8. Following the consistent view taken by this Court, the rate of interest
is increased to 9% per annum 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.].
9. The award is modified accordingly.
10. It is noted that the father of the deceased was not granted any share in
the compensation since he was found to be a pensioner and thus not
financially dependent. Though an amount of Rs.1 Lakh was awarded to the
mother, the balance was apportioned in favour of the widow and the minor
child of the deceased.
11. It is noted that by order dated 09.01.2008 in MACA 645/2007, the
insurer had been directed to deposit the entire awarded amount with the
Registrar General of this court, within the period specified, from which 50%
was allowed to be released to the claimants. Since the mother of the
deceased died on 16.04.2008, it is directed that the amount already released
in her favour shall now be treated as the share apportioned to her, the entire
balance now lying in deposit to go to the widow and the child of the
deceased only. The Registrar General shall calculate the amount payable to
the claimants (widow and child of the deceased) under the modified award
and release the same from the balance lying in deposit. Since the
compensation has been increased, the insurer shall deposit the balance of its
liability by requisite deposit with the tribunal within 30 days of this
judgment making it available to be released.
12. Statutory deposits, if made, shall be refunded.
13. Both appeals and the pending application stand disposed of in above
terms.
R.K. GAUBA
(JUDGE)
MAY 16, 2016
yg
