Delhi High Court
Shafiq Ahmad & Ors vs Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd on 19 May, 2016
$~13 & 14
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 19.05.2016
+ MAC.APP. 1170/2013 & CM Nos.3049/2014 & 10957/2014
SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD ..... Appellant
Through Mr. Sameer Nandwani with Mr.
Priyadarsi Acharya, Advs.
versus
SHAFIQ AHMAD & ORS ..... Respondent
Through Mr. A K Mishra, Adv. for R-1 & 2
+ MAC.APP. 851/2014
SHAFIQ AHMED AND ORS ..... Appellant
Through Mr. A K Mishra, Adv.
versus
SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD ..... Respondent
Through Mr. Sameer Nandwani with Mr.
Priyadarsi Acharya, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT
R.K.GAUBA, J (ORAL):
1. Kushbakht, a bachelor, employed as area manager in Super Religare
Laboratories died in a motor vehicular accident that occurred on 26.12.2011
involving negligent driving of a four wheeler tempo Tata 407 bearing
registration No.DL 1LK 6464 (offending vehicle), which was admittedly
insured against third party risk with the appellant insurance company
(insurer) for the period in question. The first and second respondents
(claimants), they being 87 year old widowed father and 37 year old blind
unmarried sister, instituted an accident claim case (suit No.279/12), on
31.05.2012, seeking compensation under Sections 166 and 140 of Motor
Vehicles Act, (MV Act). The insurer was impleaded as a party in addition
to the driver and owner of the offending vehicle. The tribunal held inquiry
and, by judgment dated 30.08.2013, upheld the case of death having
occurred due to negligent driving of the offending vehicle. This finding, as
it was not challenged any further, has since attained finality.
2. The tribunal awarded compensation in the sum of Rs.75,84,900/- with
interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition in favour of
the claimants and directed the insurer to pay. The amount of compensation
awarded by the tribunal was calculated thus :
S.No. Description Amount
1 Loss of Dependency Rs. 75,24,900/-
2 Love & Affection Rs. 25,000/-
3 Funeral expenses Rs. 25,000/-
4 Loss of Estate Rs. 10,000/-
Total Rs. 75,84,900/-
3. The insurer is in appeal submitting that there are reasons to doubt that
the second respondent claimant may not have been a sister of the deceased
inasmuch as the copy of the voter identity card (Ex.PW1/4) describes
Shafiq, the first respondent (claimant) to be her husband.
4. It is noted that the first respondent (claimant father) had appeared as
PW1 during the inquiry and affirmed on oath that the second respondent is
one of his eight children which included the deceased as the only son, all his
other daughters having been settled in marriage. The testimony of PW1
with regard to the father and daughter relationship between him and the
second respondent was not challenged during cross-examination for which
opportunity was availed by the insurer. It needs to be added that the copy of
the ration card (Ex.PW1/6), also part of the record, confirms that the second
respondent is daughter of the first respondent rather than his wife, as is
being suggested.
5. In the above circumstances, this Court finds the argument raised
orally (it was not even pleaded before the tribunal nor included as a ground
of appeal) to be in bad taste.
6. The insurer also questions the computation of loss of dependency on
the ground that the tribunal fell into error by deducting 1/3rd towards
personal & living expenses ignoring the fact that the deceased was a
bachelor. It also questions the multiplier of 15 being adopted for calculation
pointing out that the age of the first respondent, also a claimant, was 87
years old at the relevant point of time.
7. Both above contentions deserve to be accepted in view of the dictum
in Sarla Verma (Smt.) & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr.,
(2009) 6 SCC 121.
8. Since the deceased was a bachelor, one-half is to be deducted towards
personal & living expenses from the income assessed at Rs.7,52,490/- per
annum. The average age of the two claimants being 62 years, the
dependency loss has to be calculated on the multiplier of 7. Thus, the
dependency loss is recomputed as (7,52,490 ÷ 2 x 7) Rs.26,33,715/- rounded
off to Rs.26,35,000/-.
9. As pointed out by the counsel for the claimants, the tribunal had not
granted adequate awards under the non-pecuniary heads of damages.
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 on account of loss of love & affection
and Rs.25,000/- each towards loss of estate and funeral expense are added.
Thus, the total compensation payable in the case comes to (26,35,000 +
1,50,000) Rs.27,85,000/-. The award is reduced accordingly. It shall carry
interest as levied by the tribunal.
10. It is noted that the tribunal had apportioned the awarded compensation
by specifying the amounts falling to the share of the two claimants. Some
part of such shares was released for immediate use (in cash), a substantial
portion, however, having been put in fixed deposit receipt for varied terms.
11. By order dated 18.12.2013, the insurance company had been directed
to deposit the entire awarded amount with up-to-date interest with the
Registrar General from which 60% was allowed to be released to the
claimants, the balance be kept in fixed deposit receipt with UCO Bank,
Delhi High Court branch for a period of six months to be renewed
periodically.
12. Since the amount of compensation has been reduced, it is directed that
the share for immediate use (in cash) released to the first respondent (father)
shall be treated as his share in the compensation.
13. The Registrar General shall recalculate the amounts payable to the
claimants in terms of the modified award. It is quite apparent that by virtue
of the interim order, amounts in excess of their entitlement have been
released. The Registrar General shall take necessary steps by recovery of
the excess from the fixed deposit receipts that would have been made out for
carrying out directions in the interim order dated 18.12.2013 and refund the
same to the insurance company with balance lying in deposit.
14. Statutory deposit, if made, shall be refunded.
15. The appeals are disposed of in above terms.
(R.K. GAUBA)
JUDGE
MAY 19, 2016
VLD
