Delhi High Court
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Bharat Shah & Ors. on 21 October, 2016
$~26
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 21st October, 2016
+ MAC.APP. 106/2013
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Brijesh Bagga, Advocate
Versus
BHARAT SHAH & ORS. ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Navneet Goyal, Advocate for
R-1 and 2
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. The Appellant has challenged the award of Claims Tribunal
whereby compensation of Rs. 11,20,036/- has been awarded to
claimants/respondents no.1 and 2.
2. The accident dated 27th January, 2011 resulted in death of
Sogarath @ Subharath. The deceased was aged around 23 years at the
time of accident. The Claims Tribunal took minimum wages of
Rs.5,278/-, added 50% towards future prospects, deducted Rs.3,958/-
towards personal expenses and applied multiplier of 18 to compute the
loss of dependency at Rs.8,55,036/-. The Claims Tribunal awarded
Rs.1 lakh towards loss of love and affection, Rs.1 lakh towards loss of
care, attention and expenses, Rs.50,000/- towards loss to estate and
Rs. 15,000/- towards funeral expenses. Total compensation awarded
is Rs.11,20,036/-.
3. The learned counsel for appellant urged at the time of hearing of
this appeal that the addition towards future prospects was
unwarranted. It is further submitted that there is no head of "loss of
care, attention and expenses" for which Claims Tribunal has awarded
Rs.1 lakh. It is further submitted that multiplier is to be applied
according to the age of parents.
4. There is merit in the appellant's contention that there is no head
prescribed in law for granting compensation for "loss of care, attention
and expenses" and, therefore, compensation of Rs.1 lakh awarded by
Claims Tribunal under this head is liable to be set aside.
5. With respect to other two grounds urged by the learned counsel
for the appellant, this court is of the view that reduction below Rs.10
lakhs is not warranted. Reference in this regard may be made to the
judgment of the Supreme Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v.
Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy, AIR 2012 SC 100 in
which 59 persons died in Uphaar tragedy and the Supreme Court
granted compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- to the victims of above 20
years of age and Rs.7,50,000/- to the victims below 20 years of age on
the basis of multiplier method. The Supreme Court applied the
multiplier of 15 and deducted 1/3rd towards the personal expenses. The
income of the victims aged more than 20 years was assumed to be
Rs.8,333/- per month and that of victims aged less than 20 years was
assumed to be Rs.6,249/- per month. The computation of the
compensation awarded by the Supreme Court would be as under :-
For victims aged more than 20 years:-
(Rs.8,333/- less 1/3rd)x 12 x 15 = Rs.10 lakhs.
For victims aged less than 20 years:-
(Rs.6249/- less 1/3rd) x 15 = Rs.7.5 lakhs.
6. It is relevant to note that the Uphaar tragedy took place on 13th
June, 1997 and the minimum wages at the relevant time were less than
Rs.2600/-. Although there was no proof of the income of the victims,
the Supreme Court did not find it proper to apply the minimum wages.
7. This Court has applied the principles laid down in Uphaar
tragedy case to compute the compensation in United India Insurance
Co. V. Kanwar Lal, 2012 SCC Online Del 2411, New India
Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Bal Kishan Pawar, 2012 SCC Online Del
3201, National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Chander Dutt, 2012 SCC
Online Del 2412, National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sewa Ram, 2012
SCC Online Del 2413 and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Komal,
2014 ACJ 1540, National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Gaje Singh, 2012
ACJ 2346 and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Bhateri, 2012 SCC
Online Del 2409.
8. The appeal is partially allowed and the award amount is reduced
from Rs.11,20,036/- to Rs.10 lakhs along with interest @ 9% per
annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realization.
9. The appellant has deposited entire award amount with the
Claims Tribunal which has been released to respondents no.1 and 2
with the restriction of keeping 90% in FDRs for five years with the
HDFC Bank, Pitampura Branch. HDFC Bank, Pitampura Branch is
directed to give particulars of the FDRs in which the award amount
has been kept. HDFC Bank, Pitampura Branch shall not discharge the
FDRs without prior permission of this Court.
10. List for directions on 20th December, 2016. Respondents no.1
and 2 shall remain present in the court on the next date of hearing
along with original FDRs.
11. Copy of this judgment be given dasti to learned counsels for the
parties.
12. Copy of this judgment be also sent to HDFC Bank, Pitampura
Branch.
OCTOBER 21, 2016 J.R. MIDHA, J.
sm
