Delhi High Court
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs Neetu Mishra & Ors on 18 May, 2016
$~7
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 18.05.2016
+ MAC.APP. 883/2013
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. J.P.N. Shahi, Advocate
versus
NEETU MISHRA & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. S.N. Parashar and Mr. Surinder
Singh, Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT
R.K.GAUBA, J (ORAL):
1. Vijay Shankar, then 36 years in age, a practicing advocate by
profession, died as a result of the injuries suffered in a motor vehicular
accident that occurred on 25.02.2012 involving negligent driving of a motor
vehicle described as Vikram, bearing registration no.DL-ILP-0517
(offending vehicle). His widow and two minor children, first to third
respondents (claimants), instituted an accident claim case (MACT 202/12)
on 27.04.2012, impleading the appellant insurance company (insurer) and
driver-cum-owner of the offending vehicle as parties. It is admitted case of
the appellant (insurer) that the offending vehicle was insured against third
party risk for the period in question with it.
2. The tribunal upheld the case of the claimants about negligent driving
of the offending vehicle having resulted in the death and, by judgment dated
23.07.2013, awarded `29,91,350/- as compensation with interest at the rate
of 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of the petition, the said amount being
inclusive of `25,000/- towards funeral expenses, `10,000/- towards loss of
estate and `1 Lakh towards loss of care and guidance (love and affection)
besides `1 lakh towards loss of consortium. The claimants had also proved
medical expenditure in the sum of `3,56,350/- which was added to the
compensation awarded.
3. The insurer which was burdened with the liability to pay has come up
in appeal questioning the award on the ground that the income was wrongly
assessed. This contention needs only to be noted and rejected in as much as
the income was computed by the tribunal on the basis of income tax return
(ITR) for the assessment year 2010-2011. Noticeably, the said ITR was
submitted to the Income Tax Department by the deceased himself prior to
the accident. The ITR for the subsequent period could not be filed since by
the time it became due, the death had occurred. In these circumstances, the
calculation of loss of dependency cannot be faulted.
4. As pointed out by the counsel for the claimants, the award of
`10,000/- towards loss of estate is inadequate. Following the view taken in
Rajesh & Ors. v. Rajbir Singh & Ors., (2013) 9 SCC 54 and Shashikala V.
Gangalakshmamma, (2015) 9 SCC 150, it is increased to `25,000/-.
5. 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.].
6. The award is modified accordingly.
7. By order dated 27.09.2013, the insurance company had been directed
to deposit the entire awarded amount within the period specified and, out of
the same, 70% was allowed to be released, the balance kept in fixed deposit
receipt with the UCO Bank, Delhi High Court Branch, New Delhi. The
Registrar General shall now take steps to release the same as well to the
claimants. As a result of the modification ordered above, the insurance
company will be obliged to pay more. It shall deposit the requisite amount
with the tribunal within 30 days which in entirety shall be paid to the widow
(first respondent).
7. The statutory deposits, if made, shall be refunded.
8. The appeal is disposed of in above terms.
(R.K. GAUBA)
JUDGE
MAY 18, 2016
yg
