Delhi High Court
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd vs Jayawati & Ors on 15 September, 2016
$~35
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 15th September, 2016
+ MAC.APP. 382/2014
ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Tarkeshwar Nath, Mr. Onkar
Nath and Mr. Saurabh Kumar Tuteja,
Advs.
versus
JAYAWATI & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Navneet Goyal, Adv. for R1 to
R5.
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.7,64,121/- has been awarded to respondents
No.1 and 2.
2. The accident dated 08th March, 2010 resulted in the death of Rahul
Kumar. The deceased was aged 23 years at the time of accident and was
survived by his parents who filed the claim petition. The deceased was
working as a driver earning Rs.8,000/- per month. The employer of the
deceased appeared in the witness box as PW-2 to prove the occupation and
income of the deceased. However, the Claims Tribunal took the minimum
wages of Rs.6,448/- per month and added 30% towards future prospects,
deducted 50% towards personal expenses of deceased and applied multiplier
of 14 to compute the loss of dependency as Rs.7,04,121/-. The Claims
Tribunal awarded Rs.25,000/- towards love and affection, Rs.10,000/-
towards loss of estate and Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses. The total
compensation awarded by Claims Tribunal is Rs.7,64,121/-.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant urged at the time of hearing of the
appeal that respondent No.7 insured the offending vehicle for the period of
12th February, 2010 to 11th February, 2011. However, appellant was not
liable as the cheque towards the premium of the policy was dishonoured on
16th February, 2010 whereupon appellant cancelled the policy vide
endorsement dated 20th February, 2010 and intimated respondent No.7 as
well as RTO.
4. This Court has perused the documents placed on record by the
appellant before the Claims Tribunal. The letter dated 19th February, 2010 to
respondent No.7 was sent by ordinary post and there is no proof of service
of the said letter on respondent No.7. The intimation of cancellation of the
policy to the RTO has also been sent by ordinary post. There is no
justification on the part of the appellant in not sending the aforesaid two
letters to respondent No.7 and RTO by registered AD Post. This Court
therefore, does not hold the alleged intimation of the cancellation of the
policy to respondent No.7 as well as the RTO to be valid. In that view of the
matter, the appellant remains liable to pay the compensation to the third
party and to recover the same from respondent No.7. The Claims Tribunal
has already granted recovery rights to respondent No.7.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant next urged that the future prospects
of 30% should not have been taken into consideration by the Claims
Tribunal. This Court does not agree with learned counsel for the appellant.
Since the occupation of the deceased was proved by the claimants, there is
no infirmity in the Claims Tribunal taking the future prospects into
consideration to compute the compensation.
6. There is no merit in the appeal which is hereby dismissed. The
appellant has deposited the entire award amount with the Registrar General
of this Court in terms of the order dated 28th April, 2014 out of which 80%
amount has been released to respondents No.1 and 2 and the balance 20%
award amount is lying in fixed deposit.
7. The Registrar General is directed to instruct UCO Bank, Delhi High
Court Branch to discharge the FDR in respect of the balance 20% award
amount and release 30% (of 20%) to respondent No.1 (mother) and 20% (of
20%) to respondent No.2 (father). The balance 50% amount (of 20%) be
kept in fixed deposits in the following manner: -
Sr. Duration of FDR Resp. 1 Resp. 2
No. (Mother) (Father)
1. 1 year 15% 10%
2. 2 years 15% 10%
TOTAL 30% 20%
GRAND TOTAL 50%
8. The statutory amount be refunded back to the appellant after verifying
that the amount deposited by the appellant covered the interest up to the date
of deposit. In the event of any short deposit, the same shall be deducted from
the statutory amount and be paid to respondents No.1 and 2 through the
UCO Bank, Delhi High Court Branch.
9. The monthly interest on the FDRs shall be paid to respondents No.1
and 2 by transferring the same to their individual savings bank accounts.
10. At the time of maturity, the fixed deposit amount shall be
automatically credited in the individual savings bank accounts of
respondents No.1 and 2.
11. 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 claimants/beneficiaries.
12. No cheque book or debit card be issued to the claimants/respondents
No.1 and 2 without permission of this Court.
13. No loan or advance or pre-mature discharge shall be permitted
without the permission of this Court.
14. The claimants/respondents No.1 and 2 shall approach the UCO Bank
for completing the formalities for the disbursement of the award amount in
terms of this judgment.
15. UCO Bank, Delhi High Court Branch shall ensure that the savings
bank accounts of respondents No.1 and 2 are individual accounts and not
joint accounts.
16. Copy of this judgment be given dasti to counsels for the parties under
signatures of the Court Master.
J.R. MIDHA, J.
SEPTEMBER 15, 2016
ak
