Delhi High Court
United India Insurance Co. Ltd vs Omi @ Om Dutt & Ors on 19 October, 2016
$~14
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision:19th October, 2016
+ MAC.APP. 807/2014
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Pradeep Gaur and Mr. Amit
Gaur, Advs.
versus
OMI @ OM DUTT & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Peeush Sharma, Mr. S.M.
Tomar and Mr. Kartikey
Nayyar, Advs. for R1 to R6.
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.14,20,200/- has been awarded to
claimants/respondents No.1 to 6.
2. The accident dated 07th February, 2010 resulted in the death of
Sandeep. The deceased was aged 22 years at the time of the accident
and was working as House Keeping Supervisor in PVR City Mall,
Prashant Vihar earning Rs.6,594/- per month. The deceased was
survived by his parents and four un-married sisters who filed the claim
petition before the Claims Tribunal.
3. The Claims Tribunal took the income of the deceased as
Rs.5,950/- per month, added 50% towards future prospects, deducted
1/3rd towards his personal expenses and applied the multiplier of 18 to
compute the loss of dependency of Rs.12,85,200/-. The Claims
Tribunal awarded Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of love and affection,
Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.25,000/- towards funeral
expenses. The total compensation awarded is Rs.14,20,200/-.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant urged at the time of the
hearing of this appeal that the 50% future prospects should not have
been taken into consideration. It is further submitted that the personal
expenses be reduced from 1/3rd to 1/2 and multiplier be reduced from
18 to 14. Learned counsel for the appellant also disputes the
involvement of the offending vehicle in the accident.
5. Learned counsel for the claimants/respondents No.1 to 6
submits that compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just, fair
and reasonable.
6. Respondents No.1, 2 and 3 are present in Court along with their
counsel. Respondent No.1, father of the deceased is working as a
labourer and he submits that the deceased was his only son. He further
submits that all the four daughters namely sisters of the deceased are
still unmarried and the entire family had the hope on the deceased to
support the family. He further submits that entire family namely the
parents and four unmarried sisters were dependent upon income of the
deceased. Respondent No.1 submits that he is staying in rented
accommodation and he is unable to sustain the family.
7. The Trial Court record has been perused. PW-3, Accounts
Assistant of the employer of the deceased had appeared in the witness
box and proved the attendance register and salary record as Ex.PW3/1
and Ex.PW3/2. As per the said record, the salary of the deceased was
Rs.6,594/- and after deductions towards EPF, ESIC, Pension etc, the
deceased was paid salary of Rs.5,950/- per month for the month of
December, 2009. The Claims Tribunal grossly erred in taking salary of
Rs.5,950/- instead of Rs.6,594/- per month. The deceased has left
behind the family comprising of six dependents namely parents and
four unmarried sisters and, therefore, the appropriate deduction should
have been 1/4th instead of 1/3rd. The Claims Tribunal has also awarded
lower compensation of Rs.10,000/- towards the loss of estate.
8. This Court is of the view that the compensation awarded to the
claimants/respondent No.1 to 6 does not warrant any reduction
considering that the Claims Tribunal has taken lower income of
Rs.5,950/- instead of Rs.6,954/-, and has made higher deduction
towards personal expenses and awarded lower compensation under the
head of loss of estate. This Court is also satisfied with respect to the
involvement of the offending vehicle in the accident.
9. The appeal is dismissed. The appellant has deposited the entire
award amount with the Registrar General of this Court in terms of the
order dated 05th September, 2014 out of which 60% amount has been
released to the claimants and the balance 40% amount is lying with the
fixed deposit. The Registrar General is directed to instruct the UCO
Bank, Delhi High Court Branch to release Rs.20,000/- to each of the
six respondents. The balance amount be kept in 10 fixed deposit of
equal amount in the name of respondent No.2 for the period of 1 year,
2 years, 3 years, 4 years, 5 years, 6 years, 7 years, 8 years, 9 years and
10 years.
10. The monthly interest on the FDRs of respondent No. 2 shall be
credited in her individual savings bank account. Respondent No.2
shall intimate the particulars of her savings bank accounts to UCO
Bank, Delhi High Court Branch.
11. At the time of maturity, the fixed deposit amount shall be
automatically credited in the savings bank accounts of respondent
No.2.
12. All the original FDRs shall be retained by UCO Bank, Delhi
High Court Branch. However, the photocopies of the same shall be
provided to the respondent No.2.
13. No cheque book or debit card be issued to the respondent No.2
without permission of this Court.
14. No loan or advance or pre-mature discharge shall be permitted
without the permission of this Court.
15. The respondent No.2 shall approach the UCO Bank for
completing the formalities for the disbursement of the award amount
in terms of this order.
16. UCO Bank, Delhi High Court Branch shall ensure that the
savings bank account of respondent No.2 is an individual account and
not joint account.
17. Copy of this judgment be given dasti to learned counsels for the
parties under signature of Court Master.
OCTOBER 19, 2016 J.R. MIDHA, J.
ak
