Delhi High Court
New India Assurance Co Ltd vs Babita & Ors on 2 August, 2017
$~11
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 02nd August, 2017
+ MAC.APP. 544/2015 and CM 12274/2015
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Dubey, Mr.
Chandan Kumar Pandey, Mr. Krishna Kant
Dubey, Advocates for Ms. Shuchi Singh,
Advocate
versus
BABITA & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Navneet Goel and Ms.
Hreeshika Bhargava, Advocates for R-1 to 5
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. Rajbir Singh, an ex-serviceman, employed as Security
Supervisor with Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, Rajendra Nagar suffered
injuries in a motor vehicular accident that occurred on 19.04.2014 and
died in the consequence. The accident had been caused due to rash
driving of Wagon R car bearing no.DL-7CC-9490, admittedly insured
against third party risk with the appellant insurance company (insurer).
2. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Tribunal) assessed
compensation in the sum of Rs.38,00,600/- it inclusive of
Rs.3,50,000/- towards loss of love and affection, Rs.1,00,000/- each
towards loss to estate and loss of consortium and Rs.25,000/- towards
funeral expenses and balance on account of loss of dependency, it
having been worked out on the basis of last drawn salary with element
of future prospects of increase having been added.
3. The insurer, on which the liability has been placed, has come up
in appeal questioning the addition of the element of future prospects
and also the award under the non-pecuniary heads of damages.
4. The deceased was an ex-serviceman and was in regular service
with Sir Ganga Ram Hospital as Security Supervisor. The death had
occurred at the age of 44 years. In these circumstances, while the
addition of the element of future prospects cannot be grudged, such
factor should have been restricted to the extent of 30% in view of the
ruling in Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr.,
(2009) 6 SCC 121.
5. It is noted that the tribunal has made a deduction of one-fifth
towards personal and living expenses. This was erroneous as there are
five claimants in which view the deduction should have been to the
extent of one-fourth.
6. Thus, loss of dependency is recalculated as (Rs.16,000/- x 3/4 x
130/100 x 12 x 14) Rs.26,20,800/-, rounded off to Rs.26,21,000/-.
7. The Tribunal has added non-pecuniary damages in the above
mentioned amounts without any justification. The accident had
occurred on 19.04.2014. Following the ruling of this court in Shriram
General Insurance Co Ltd v. Usha, MAC.APP.No.160/2015, decided
on 05.05.2016, amounts of Rs.1,50,000/- each are added towards loss
of love and affection and loss of consortium and Rs.50,000/- each are
awarded towards loss to estate and funeral expenses.
8. Thus, the total compensation in the case comes to
(Rs.26,21,000/- + Rs.1,50,000/- + Rs.1,50,000/- + Rs.50,000/- +
Rs.50,000/-) Rs.30,21,000/-.
9. The award is modified accordingly. Needless to add, it shall
carry interest as levied by the Tribunal.
10. The Tribunal had specified the amounts payable to the
claimants. By order dated 15.07.2015, the insurance company had
been directed to deposit the entire awarded amount with upto date
interest from which 50% was allowed to be released. Since the
compensation has been reduced, it is directed that apportionment in
favour of the claimants other than the widow (Babita) shall be treated
as the amounts already received by them, the entire balance now
falling to her share.
11. The Registry shall calculate the amount now payable to the
claimant in terms of the modified award and release the balance from
out of the amount deposited refunding the excess to the insurance
company.
12. The statutory amount shall be refunded.
13. The appeal and the pending application are disposed of in above
terms.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
AUGUST 02, 2017
yg
