Delhi High Court
Sarita & Ors vs Neeraj & Ors (The New India ... on 20 September, 2016
$~37
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 20th September, 2016
+ MAC.APP. 78/2015
SARITA & ORS ..... Appellants
Through: Mr. Sanjiv Narang, Mr. A.N. Pandey,
Mr. Sanjeev Kumar and Mr. Niranjan
Bharti, Advocates
versus
NEERAJ & ORS
(THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD) ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. S.P. Verma, Advocate for
respondents No.2.
Mr. Kanwal Chaudhary, Advocate for
R3.
Mr. Ashok Popli, Advocate as amicus
curiae
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
C.M. Appl. 1319/2015
The delay in filing the appeal is condoned. The Application is
disposed of.
MAC.APP. 78/2015
1. The appellants/claimants have challenged the award of the Claims
Tribunal whereby compensation of Rs.10,06,000/- has been awarded to
them by the Claims Tribunal.
2. The accident dated 21st May, 2006 resulted in the death of Gama
Prasad. The deceased was aged 39 years at the time of the accident and was
survived by his widow and three minor children, who filed the claim petition
before the Claims Tribunal. The deceased was working as a tailor earning
Rs.4,950/- per month. The Claims Tribunal deducted the conveyance
allowance of Rs.792/- per month and took the income of the deceased as
Rs.4,158/- per month (rounded off to Rs.4150/-). The Claims Tribunal
added 50% towards future prospects, deducted 1/4th towards personal
expenses of the deceased and applied the multiplier of 15 to compute the
loss of dependency as Rs.8,46,000/-. The Claims Tribunal awarded
Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs.75,000/- towards loss of love
and affection, Rs.10,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.10,000/- towards
loss of estate, Rs.5,000/- towards conveyance and Rs.50,000/- towards
medical treatment. The total compensation awarded is Rs.10,06,000/-.
3. The offending vehicle was driven by respondent No.1, who was minor
at the time of the accident. The Claims Tribunal, therefore, exonerated New
India Assurance Company Limited and passed the award against the driver
and owner of the offending vehicle.
4. The learned counsel for the appellants urged before this Court is that
respondent No.3, New India Assurance Company Limited, be held liable to
pay the award amount at the first instance and thereafter, recover the same
from the owner and driver.
5. Vide order dated 02nd August, 2016, this Court appointed Mr. Ashok
Popli, Advocate, as amicus curiae to assist this Court on the issue as to
whether the insurance company can be held liable to pay the award amount
at the first instance and thereafter, recover the same from the owner.
6. Mr. Ashok Popli, learned amicus curiae, submitted that the Supreme
Court in Jawahar Singh v. Bala Jain, 2011 ACJ 1677 upheld the liability of
the insurance company to satisfy the award in respect of a claim arising out
the accident caused by a minor and thereafter, recover the same from the
owner. Learned amicus curiae also referred to Banesingh v. Bharatsingh
2014 ACJ 2499 in which the Madhya Pradesh High Court, following
Jawahar Singh v. Bala Jain (supra), directed the insurance company to pay
the compensation to the claimants and thereafter, recover the same from the
owner and the driver. Paras 7 and 8 of the judgment are reproduced
hereunder:
"7. In our considered opinion, the decision given in the case
of Jawahar Singh, 2011 ACJ 1677 (SC), is more close to
the facts of the case because that was also a case where
the minor caused the accident and the Supreme Court
upheld the order of the Tribunal as well as of the High
Court which saddled the liability on the insurance
company with direction to pay and recover from the
owner and driver.
8. In view of the decision of Supreme Court in the case of
Jawahar Singh, we direct the respondent insurance
company to pay the amount of compensation to the
appellant and recover the same from the owner and driver
of the offending vehicle. Thus, the impugned award is
modified to the extent indicated hereinabove. The
enhanced amount shall also carry interest at the rate of 6
per cent per annum from the date of this order till it is
actually paid."
7. The learned amicus curiae also referred to Santosh Chhabra v.
Abhishek Gureja, 2014 ACJ 2298 in which this Court while dealing with an
accident caused by a minor directed the insurance company to pay
compensation at the first instance and thereafter, recover the same from the
owner of the offending vehicle.
8. The learned counsel for respondent No.3 referred to United India
Insurance Company Ltd. v. Gian Chand, (1997) 7 SCC 558 in which the
Supreme Court exonerated the insurance company in cases where the driver
was not holding a valid driving licence.
9. Learned counsel for the claimants submitted that United India
Insurance Company Ltd. v. Gian Chand (supra) does not deal with the case
of a minor. Learned counsel for the claimants referred to and relied upon
with S. Iyyapan v. M/s United India Insurance Company Limited, AIR
2013 (SC) 2262.
10. On careful consideration of the submissions made by learned counsels
for the parties and the learned amicus curiae, this Court is of the view that
this case is squarely covered by Jawahar Singh v. Bala Jain (supra)
followed by Madhya Pradesh High Court in Banesingh v. Bharatsingh
(supra). Santosh Chhabra v. Abhishek Gureja (supra) of this Court also
covers the present case whereas United India Insurance Company Ltd. v.
Gian Chand, (supra) cited by respondent No.3 (supra) does not deal with
the case of a vehicle driven by a minor.
11. The appeal is allowed and award for Rs.10,06,000/- is passed against
respondent No.3 who shall be entitled to recover the same from respondents
No.1 and 2 after satisfying the same.
12. The shares of the appellants in the award amount shall be as under:
Appellant No.1 (wife) - 55%
Appellant No.2 (son) - 15%
Appellant No.3 (daughter) - 15%
Appellant No.4 (minor daughter) - 15%
13. Respondent No.3 is directed to deposit the entire award amount along
with interest with UCO Bank, Delhi High Court Branch by means of a
cheque drawn in the name of UCO Bank A/c Sarita within four weeks.
14. Upon deposit of the aforesaid amount, UCO Bank shall keep 85% of
the award amount in fixed deposit in the following manner: -
Sr. Duration Appellant 1 Appellant 2 Appellant 3 Appellant 4
No. of FDR (Wife) (Son) (daughter) (minor daughter)
(% of award (% of award (% of award (% of award
amount) amount) amount) amount)
1. 1 yr 10% 5% 5% 15% of the award
amount till she attains
2. 2 yrs 10% 5% 5% the age of majority.
3. 3 yrs 10% - -
On maturity, 5% of the
4. 4 yrs 10% - - award amount be
5. 5 yrs 10% - - released to appellant
No.4 and the balance
10% of the award
amount be kept in two
FDRs of equal amount
for the period of 1 year
and 2 years.
TOTAL 50% 10% 10% 15%
GRAND TOTAL 85%
15. UCO Bank shall release the balance 15% of the award amount, after
issuing the aforesaid FDRs, to appellants No.1, 2 and 3 in equal shares by
transferring the same to their individual savings bank accounts.
16. Monthly interest on the FDRs of appellants No.1, 2 & 3 shall be
credited in their individual savings bank accounts. However, the monthly
interest on the FDR of appellant No.4 shall be credited to individual savings
bank account of appellant No.1.
17. At the time of maturity, the fixed deposit amount shall be
automatically credited in the individual savings bank accounts of the
claimants/beneficiaries.
18. 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.
19. No cheque book or debit card be issued to the claimants/appellants
without permission of this Court.
20. No loan or advance or pre-mature discharge shall be permitted
without the permission of this Court.
21. The claimants/appellants shall approach the UCO Bank for
completing the formalities for the disbursement of the award amount in
terms of this order.
22. UCO Bank, Delhi High Court Branch shall ensure that the savings
bank accounts of appellants are individual accounts and not joint accounts.
23. List for reporting compliance on 03rd November, 2016.
24. Copy of this judgment be given dasti to counsels for the parties under
signatures of the Court Master.
J.R. MIDHA, J.
SEPTEMBER 20, 2016
rsk
