Delhi High Court
Saroj & Ors. vs Bajaj Allianz General Insurance ... on 3 August, 2017
$~R-84 & 85
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 03rd August, 2017
+ MAC APPEAL 372/2009
BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE
CO. LTD. ..... Appellant
Through: Ms. Manu Kushwaha,
Advocate
versus
SAROJ & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Anshuman Bal, Adv. for
R-1 to 8
+ MAC APPEAL 1037/2016
SAROJ & ORS. ..... Appellants
Through: Mr. Anshuman Bal, Advocate
versus
BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE
CO. LTD. & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Manu Kushwaha, Adv. for
R-1
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. Raghubir Singh (born on 12.10.1958), employed as Work
Assistant with Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited (MTNL),
suffered death due to injuries sustained in a motor vehicular accident
that occurred on 12.01.2008 about 1.30 p.m. due to negligent driving
of a motor vehicle described as Tata 709 bearing registration no.DL-
1LG-7673, which was admittedly insured against third party risk with
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. (appellant in MACA
372/2009). His wife and other members of the family, claiming to be
dependents, they being first to eight respondents in MACA 372/2009
(collectively, the claimants), they also having since filed cross-appeal
(MACA 1037/2016), instituted accident claim case (suit no.90/2008)
on 12.02.2008 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Tribunal).
2. After inquiry, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Tribunal),
awarded compensation in the sum of Rs.26,04,148/- and directed the
insurer to pay with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. The said award
included Rs.25,000/- as composite compensation on account of funeral
expenses and loss of love and affection and the rest for the loss of
dependency.
3. The insurer has come up in appeal (MACA 372/2009)
submitting that the loss of dependency was improperly calculated.
The claimants, on the other hand, by their cross appeal (MACA
1037/2016) are aggrieved submitting that the compensation awarded is
inadequate.
4. Having heard both sides and having gone through the record,
this court finds some errors and deficiencies in the award granted by
the Tribunal, the submission of the claimants about inadequacy being
correct.
5. The deceased was less than 50 years old at the time of accident.
Therefore, the multiplier of 13 was correctly adopted. Having regard
to the fact that three of his children were already married and settled,
the personal expenses to the extent of one-fourth was correctly
deducted. However, the error occurred in assessing the salary. The
tribunal took it at Rs.14,696/- p.m., it being the net salary against the
salary proved by document (Ex. PW3/5). It, however, ignored that the
salary stood increased on account of merger of the dearness allowance
and as per last pay certificate (Ex. PW3/4), the total emoluments
earned by him at the time of his death were in the sum of Rs.18,589/-
which should have been the basis of calculation of loss of dependency.
Since the deceased had not attained the age of 50 years, future
prospects of increase to the extent of 30% had also to be added.
6. Having regard to the last income of Rs.18,589/-, the annual
income would come to Rs.2,23,068/-. Taking into account of rates of
income tax applicable at the relevant point of time, including the
deductions which were allowed, there would be no element of income
tax liability. Thus, calculated loss of dependency is worked out as
(Rs.18,589/- x 130/100 x 3 / 4 x 12 x 13) Rs.28,27,386.9, rounded off
to Rs.28,28,000/-.
7. Indeed, the non-pecuniary damages are grossly inadequate.
Following the rulings in Rajesh & Ors. v. Rajbir Singh & Ors., (2013)
9 SCC 54 and Shashikala V. Gangalakshmamma (2015) 9 SCC 150
awards of Rs.1 Lakh each towards loss of love and affection and loss
of consortium and Rs.25,000/- each towards loss of estate and funeral
expenses are added. Thus, the total compensation is computed as
(Rs.28,28,000/- + Rs.1,00,000/- + Rs.1,00,000/- + Rs.25,000/-
+Rs.25,000/-) Rs.30,78,000/-.
8. Following the consistent view taken by this Court, the rate of
interest is increased to 9% per annum from the date of filing of the
petition till realization. [see judgment dated 22.02.2016 in MAC.APP.
165/2011 Oriental Insurance Co Ltd v. Sangeeta Devi & Ors.].
9. The award is modified accordingly.
10. The amount of compensation awarded by the tribunal was
deposited and released in terms of order dated 28.10.2009. Since the
award has been increased, the insurance company shall be liable to
pay the balance with corresponding benefit of increase in the rate of
interest. Such deposit shall be made with the Tribunal within 30 days
making it available to be released. Having regard to the
apportionment already made in favour of the other claimants, it is
directed that the entire balance now to be paid shall be released to the
widow (Saroj) in the form of fixed deposit receipts for a period of
seven years with right to draw monthly interest.
11. The statutory deposit, if any, made by the insurance company
shall be refunded.
12. Both the appeals are disposed of in above terms.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
AUGUST 03, 2017
yg
