Delhi High Court
Tata Aig General Insurance Co. ... vs Laxmi Jha & Ors. on 29 November, 2016
$~9 to 11
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 29th November, 2016
(i) + MAC.APP. 639/2013 & C.M.No.15434/2013
TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
..... Appellant
Through : Mr.Arbaaz Hussain, Advocate for
Ms.Shantha Devi Raman,
Advocate
versus
LAXMI JHA & ORS.
..... Respondents
Through : Mr.Anshuman Bal, Advocate for
respondent Nos.1 to 4.
(ii) + MAC.APP. 663/2013
TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD
..... Appellant
Through : Mr.Arbaaz Hussain, Advocate for
Ms.Shantha Devi Raman,
Advocate
versus
SH BABLU & ORS
..... Respondents
Through : Mr.Anshuman Bal, Advocate for
respondent Nos.1 to 4
(iii) + MAC.APP. 866/2013
SMT LAXMI JHA & ORS
..... Appellants
Through : Mr.Anshuman Bal, Advocate
versus
MAC.APP.639, 663 & 866 of 2013 Page 1 of 4
SH MANISH GUPTA & ORS
..... Respondents
Through : Mr.Arbaaz Hussain, Advocate for
Ms.Shantha Devi Raman,
Advocate for respondent
No.3/Insurer.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
(ORAL)
The above three appeals are directed against common impugned
Award of 15th April, 2013, vide which the compensation of `13,55,500/-
with interest has been awarded to the Claimants in respect of a road
accident which took place on 19th June, 2011 at about 08.50PM in front
of Pillar No.19B, Sultanpur Metro Station, on MG Road, New Delhi.
In this accident, husband of Claimant Laxmi Jha had died. The
remaining Claimants are the children and parents of deceased. The above
first two appeals are by the Insurer whereas the above captioned third
appeal is by the claimants, who seek enhancement of compensation.
With the consent of learned counsel for parties, above captioned
three appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this
common judgment.
The challenge to impugned Award by learned counsel for Insurer is
on the ground that eye-version account of the witnesses Babloo and Kapil
are contradictory and so negligence of the offending vehicle is not
proved. Learned counsel for Insurer submits that grant of future
prospects is wholly unjustified because income of the deceased has been
assessed on minimum wages as he was not having any permanent
employment. Thus, it is submitted that the compensation awarded
deserves to be suitably reduced.
To the contrary is the submission of learned counsel for claimants,
who asserts that Insurer had not filed any application under Section 170
of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. So, it is submitted that the stand now
taken by learned counsel for Insurer is not available in view of Supreme
Court decision in National Insurance Co Ltd vs. Nicolletta Rohtagi & Ors
(2002 ACJ 1950). To seek enhancement of compensation, learned
counsel for claimants submits that in view of the decision of Supreme
Court in Rajesh & Ors vs. Rajbir Singh & Ors : (2013) 9 SCC 54, the
compensation granted under the head 'Loss of love and affection' and
'Loss of Consortium' ought to be suitably enhanced to `1.00 Lac each
and the funeral expenses also deserve to be enhanced to `25,000/- and
the impugned Award be suitably modified. Nothing else is urged by
either side.
Upon hearing and on perusal of impugned Award, the evidence on
record, I find that in the absence of application under Section 170 of the
Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 by the Insurer, all the grounds are not available
to the Insurer and only limited grounds that are provided under sub-
Section 2 of Section 149 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 are available. In
view thereof, the Insurer is precluded from challenging the impugned
Award on the ground of negligence or quantum of compensation
awarded. In this view of the matter, the above first two appeals and
application are dismissed.
Insofar as the claim for enhancement of compensation is
concerned, I find that in view of Supreme Court decision in Rajesh
(supra), compensation granted to the Claimants under head of 'Loss of
Love and Affection' deserves to be enhanced from `25,000/- to `1.00
Lac; and compensation granted under the head 'Loss of Estate' twice
over is rectified by granting compensation `1.00 Lac under the head of
'Loss of Consortium' and funeral expenses are also enhanced from `
10,000/- to `25,000/-. Thus, the compensation granted is enhanced from
`13,55,500/- to `15,35,500/-. The enhanced compensation would carry
the interest as awarded by learned Tribunal in the impugned Award and
the disbursement of the enhanced amount shall be in the same ratio as
already granted by learned Tribunal except that the compensation of
`1.00 Lac granted under the head of 'Loss of Consortium' shall go to the
widow of the deceased alone.
The Insurer is granted eight weeks' time to deposit the enhanced
compensation in terms of above modified Award in the bank accounts of
Claimants in Delhi High Court Branch of UCO Bank. The statutory
deposits, if made by the Insurer shall be refunded.
With the aforesaid modifications, the above three appeals are
disposed of.
(SUNIL GAUR)
Judge
NOVEMBER 29, 2016
M
