Delhi High Court
Oriental Insurance Co Ltd vs Seema Pandey & Ors on 17 May, 2016
$~23 & 24
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 17th May, 2016
+ MAC.APP. 256/2014
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Pradeep Gaur, Adv.
versus
SEEMA PANDEY & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. S. N. Parashar, Adv.
AND
+ MAC.APP. 258/2014
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Pradeep Gaur, Adv.
versus
RANI PANDEY & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. S. N. Parashar, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT
R.K.GAUBA, J (ORAL):
1. On 28.04.2012, Arvind Kumar Pandey, aged 42 years, and Sanjay
Kumar Pandey, aged 40 years, died as a result of injuries suffered in a motor
vehicular accident due to negligent driving of the truck-trailer bearing
registration no.RJ-14GB-2211 (the offending vehicle), admittedly insured
against third party risk with the appellant/insurance company (the insurer)
for the period in question. Three accident claims were filed, two of which
have given rise to these appeals, one (MAC appeal no.386/2012) having
been instituted by first to fourth respondents (claimant in MAC appeal
no.256/2014) and, the other, by first to third respondents (the claimants in
MAC appeal no.258/2014) on account of death of Arvind Kumar Pandey
and Sanjay Kumar Pandey respectively. In both the cases, the insurer was
impleaded as respondent in addition to driver and owner of the offending
vehicle.
2. By a common judgment passed on 20.12.2013, the motor accident
claims tribunal (the tribunal) upheld the case of the claimants in both these
cases about death having occurred due to negligent driving of the offending
vehicle. The said finding has attained finality as the same was not
challenged.
3. The tribunal awarded compensation in case of death of Arvind Kumar
Pandey in the sum of `16,21,584/- and in the case of death of Sanjay Kumar
Pandey, in the sum of `18,95,760/-, directing the insurer to pay the same
with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum. The amounts awarded as
compensation in both the cases include `1,00,000/- each towards loss of
consortium and loss of care & guidance besides `25,000/- towards
cremation charges, balance having been calculated as loss of dependency.
4. The insurer is in appeal questioning the awards in the two cases on the
ground that in calculating the loss of dependency the tribunal added element
of future prospects because the income had been notionally assessed on
minimum wages. Per contra, the claimants argued that the tribunal failed to
grant any award towards loss of estate and that the rate of interest levied is
on the lower side.
5. It is noted that the claimants in both the cases were unable to muster
clear proof as to the nature of avocation and progressive rise in income of
both the deceased persons. Thus, the element of future prospects has to be
kept out.
6. In case of death of Arvind Pandey, proof was adduced that he was a
matriculate. Thus, the tribunal assumed income notionally at `8528/- per
month, it being the rate of minimum wages for matriculate. Having regard
to the age (42 years) of the deceased, the tribunal applied the multiplier of
14 and deducted one-fourth towards personal and living expenses (keeping
in view the number of dependants). In the case of Sanjay Kumar Pandey,
the claimants proved that he was a graduate and, thus, minimum wages of
`9282/- was adopted. Since he was 40 years old, the multiplier of 15 was
applied, with personal and living expenses having been discounted to the
extent of one-third (since there are only three dependants).
7. The loss of dependency in the case of death of Arvind Pandey is re-
computed as (8528x3/4x12x14) `10,74,528/-, rounded off to `10,75,000/-.
Adding the amount of `25,000/- towards loss to estate in addition to non-
pecuniary damages awarded by the tribunal, the total compensation in the
case comes to (10,75,000+2,50,000) `13,25,000/-.
8. In the case of death of Sanjay Kumar Pandey, the dependency loss is
re-computed as (9282 x 2/3 x 12 x 15) `11,13,840/-, rounded off to
`11,14,000/-. Adding `25,000/- towards loss to estate and the non-
pecuniary damages as awarded by the tribunal, the total compensation in the
case comes to (11,14,000+2,50,000) `13,64,000/-.
9. 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 in each case
from the date of filing of the petition till realization.
10. The awards are modified accordingly.
11. By identical order dated 24.03.2014 in each of these appeals, the
appellant/insurance company had been directed to deposit the entire awarded
amount with up-to-date interest with the Registrar General and, out of such
deposit, 50% was allowed to be released, the balance kept in fixed deposit
receipts with UCO Bank, Delhi High Court branch for a period of one year
to be renewed periodically. The Registrar General shall calculate the
amount payable to the claimants in terms of the award modified as above
and release the balance to them, refunding the excess, if any, in deposit
with statutory deposit, if made, to the insurance company.
12. The appeal is disposed of in above terms.
R.K. GAUBA
(JUDGE)
MAY 17, 2016/ssc
