The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Ruchi Suri & Ors.
2016 Latest Caselaw 7144 Del

$~33
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%                           Date of Decision: 29th November, 2016
+      MAC.APP.360/2008
       THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD...... Appellant
                     Through: Mr. Shomik Mazumdar, Adv.

                          versus

       RUCHI SURI & ORS.                         ..... Respondents
                     Through:         Mr. Divyanshu Sahay, Adv. for
                                      R1 and R2.

       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.3,30,500/- has been awarded to respondents No.1 and 2.

2. The accident dated 07th November, 1998 resulted in the death of Gajinder Malhotra. The deceased was survived by his father and two sisters who filed the claim petitions before the Claims Tribunal. During the pendency of the claim petitions, the father of the deceased expired and his right to sue survived on the two daughters, namely the sisters of the deceased. The deceased was aged 23 years at the time of the accident. The Claims Tribunal took minimum wages of Rs.2,385/- in respect of a matriculate, added 50% towards inflation, deducted 50% towards personal expenses of the deceased and applied the multiplier of 14 to compute the loss of dependency as Rs.3,00,468/-.

The Claims Tribunal awarded Rs.25,000/- towards loss of love and affection and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses. The total compensation awarded is Rs.3,30,500/- along with interest @ 7% per annum.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged at the time of hearing that respondents No.1 and 2 are the married sisters of the deceased and are not entitled to any compensation.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents No.1 and 2 submits that the deceased was survived by his father who was entitled to the compensation before the Claims Tribunal. It is further submitted that the father of the deceased expired on 13th April, 2005 and his right to sue survived upon respondents No.1 and 2. It is further submitted that the respondents were dependent upon the deceased and are entitled to the compensation.

5. This Court is of the view that even assuming that respondents No.1 and 2 were not dependent upon the deceased, they are entitled to the compensation being the legal representatives of the father of the deceased who died during the pendency of the claim petition.

6. The appeal is dismissed. The appellant has deposited 50% of the award amount with the Registrar General of this Court in terms of the order dated 01st July, 2008 out of which 25% have been released to respondents No.1 and 2 and Rs.3,41,269/- is lying in fixed deposit in the name of Registrar General of this Court. The Registrar General is directed to disburse the aforesaid amount to respondents No.1 and 2 by instructing UCO Bank, Delhi High Court Branch to discharge the FDR and release the FDR amount to respondents No.1 and 2 in equal shares.

7. The appellant has deposited Rs.3,22,232/- with UCO Bank, Delhi High Court Branch on 14th September, 2016 in terms of the order dated 30th August, 2016. The UCO Bank, Delhi High Court Branch is directed to keep the aforesaid amount in two FDRs of equal amount in the name of respondents No.1 and 2 for a period of one year with cumulative interest.

8. The appellant has deducted TDS of Rs.39,250/- while depositing Rs.3,22,232/- with UCO Bank, Delhi High Court Branch. The petitioner shall furnish the TDS certificate to the respondents within two weeks from today.

9. At the time of maturity, the fixed deposit amount shall be credited in the individual savings bank accounts of respondents No.1 and 2.

10. The original FDRs shall be retained by UCO Bank, Delhi High Court Branch. However, the photocopies of the same shall be provided to respondents No.1 and 2.

11. No loan or advance or pre-mature discharge shall be permitted without the permission of this Court.

12. UCO Bank, Delhi High Court Branch shall ensure that the savings bank accounts of respondents are individual accounts and not joint accounts.

13. Copy of this judgment be given dasti to learned counsels for the parties under signature of Court Master.

NOVEMBER 29, 2016                                       J.R. MIDHA, J.
ak