Delhi High Court
Anarkali vs Icici Lombard Gen Ins Co Ltd & Anr on 3 November, 2016
$~2
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 03rd November, 2016
+ MAC. APP. 733/2015
ANARKALI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Anshuman Bal, Advocate
Versus
ICICI LOMBARD GEN INS CO LTD & ANR ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Garud M.V., Advocate for
respondent No.1
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. The appellant has challenged the award of the Claims Tribunal
whereby compensation of Rs.2,73,375/- has been awarded to the
appellant.
2. On 09th September, 2011, Amit Dubey was travelling as a
pillion rider on motorcycle No.DL-1SU-1571 being driven and owned
by respondent No.1. The motorcycle met with an accident on G.T.
Road near Shashtri Park resulting in the death of Amit Dubey. The
deceased was aged 27 years at the time of the accident and was in
private service and was earning Rs.40,000/- per annum. The deceased
was survived by his mother who filed the claim petition under Section
163A of the Motor Vehicles Act.
3. The Claims Tribunal took the income of the deceased as
Rs.40,000/- per annum, deducted one-half towards his personal
expenses and applied the multiplier of 18 to compute the loss of
dependency at Rs.3,60,000/-. The Claims Tribunal awarded funeral
expenses of Rs.2,000/- and loss of estate of Rs.2,500/-. The Claims
Tribunal deducted 25% as contributory negligence and awarded
Rs.2,73,375/- to the appellant.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant urged at the time of hearing
that the Claims Tribunal erred in deducting 25% towards contributory
negligence. It is submitted that the compensation under Section 163A
of the Motor Vehicles Act is awarded on the basis of no fault liability
and, therefore, the Claims Tribunal was not required to go into the
aspect of contributory negligence. The next submission made by
learned counsel for the appellant is that as per the Second Schedule of
the Motor Vehicles Act, one-third of the personal expenses of the
deceased have to be deducted.
5. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 submitted that the
compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just, fair and
reasonable. Learned counsel submits that the Claims Tribunal has
rightly deducted 25% towards contributory negligence as three
persons were travelling on the motorcycle.
6. There is merit in the contention urged by learned counsel for the
appellant. Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act is based on no
fault liability and, therefore, the Claims Tribunal erred in deducting
25% towards contributory negligence of the deceased. The deduction
of 25% towards the contributory negligence of the deceased is set
aside.
7. With respect to the deduction towards personal expenses, the
structured formula in the Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act
clearly provides for one-third deduction and, therefore, the deduction
towards personal expenses are reduced from one-half to one-third.
8. The appeal is allowed and the award amount is enhanced from
Rs.2,73,375/- to Rs.4,84,500/- along with interest @ 9% per annum
from the date of filing of the claim petition i.e. 28th September, 2011.
9. The respondent No.1 is directed to deposit the enhanced award
amount with UCO Bank, Delhi High Court Branch by means of a
cheque drawn in the name of UCO Bank A/c Anarkali within four
weeks.
10. Upon the aforesaid deposit being made, UCO Bank shall keep
the said amount in fixed deposit in its own name till further order by
this Court so that the amount starts earning interest from the date of
the clearance of the cheque.
11. The disbursement order with respect to the enhanced award
amount shall be passed in the presence of the appellant, who shall
remain present on the next date of hearing.
12. List for direction on 20th December, 2016.
13. Copy of this judgment be given dasti to counsels for the parties
under signatures of the Court Master.
NOVEMBER 03, 2016 J.R. MIDHA, J.
rsk
