Delhi High Court
The Oriental Insurance Co Ltd vs Veena & Ors on 23 August, 2017
$~7
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 23rd August, 2017
+ MAC.APP. 484/2016 and CM APPL.22751/2016
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. J.P.N. Shahi, Advocate
with Ms. Komal Dhingra,
Advocate
versus
VEENA & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.S.N. Parashar, Advocate
with Ms. Pankaj Kumari,
Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. Vijay Kumar, aged 24 years, a bachelor, died in a motor
vehicular accident that occurred on 11.01.2013 due to negligent
driving of the truck bearing registration No.HR-63A-8375, admittedly
insured against third party risk with the appellant insurance company
(insurer). His mother, the first respondent (claimant) instituted
accident claim case (MACT No.67/2013) on 14.02.2013 seeking
compensation.
2. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the tribunal), by
judgment dated 28.03.2016, awarded compensation in the total sum of
Rs.25,65,000/- with interest @ nine per cent (9%) per annum,
fastening the liability on the insurer. The said amount includes
Rs.24,30,000/- towards loss of dependency, this having been
calculated on the multiplier of 18, going by the age of the deceased, on
the income of Rs.15,000/- per month, besides Rs.1 lac towards loss of
love and affection, Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.25,000/-
towards funeral expenses.
3. The insurance company is in appeal questioning the
computation of loss of dependency on the ground the multiplier of 14
should have been adopted, having regard to the age (41 years) of the
claimant mother. Per contra, the counsel for the claimant pointed out
deficiency in the award under the non-pecuniary heads of damages.
Contentions of both sides, as noted above, deserve to be accepted.
4. There is indeed divergence of opinion in various decisions of
Supreme Court on the issue of multiplier in cases where the age of the
claimant(s) is higher than that of the deceased. Having regard to the
rulings of the Supreme Court in General Manager, Kerala State Road
Transport Corporation vs. Susamma Thomas & Ors., (1994) 2 SCC
176 and U.P.S.R.T.C. vs Trilok Chandra (1996) 4 SCC 362, and
considering the decision in Reshma Kumari V. Madan Mohan (2013) 9
SCC 65 and Munna Lal Jain and Anr. vs. Vipin Kumar Sharma and
Ors., JT 2015 (5) SC 1, this court in National Insurance Company
Limited vs. Mohammed Siddique & Ors., MAC APP.431/2016,
decided on 18th July, 2017, has held as under:
"16. Since the decision in Trilok Chandra and Ors.,
(supra) by a bench of three Hon'ble Judges is prior in time
in relation to the decisions in Reshma Kumari (supra) and
Munna Lal Jain (supra), it is the statement of law on choice
of multiplier in the former which is to be taken as the
binding precedent. Thus, this court will follow the dictum in
the said judgment and adopt the multiplier according to the
age of the deceased or that of the claimants, whichever is
higher."
5. Hence, the multiplier according to the age of the claimant
mother, it being higher, will have to be the bench mark. Thus, the loss
of dependency is re-worked as (15,000/- x 150/100 x 1/2 x 12 x 14)
Rs.18,90,000/- (Rupees eighteen lacs ninety thousand only).
6. Having regard to the date of the accident (11.01.2013)
following the dispensation in MAC.APP.No.160/2015 Shriram
General Insurance Co Ltd v. Usha decided by this court on
05.05.2016, compensation on account of loss of love and affection is
increased to Rs.1,50,000/- and that on account of loss of estate and
funeral expenses, Rs.50,000/- each are added.
7. Thus, the total compensation payable in the case comes to
(Rs.18,90,000/- + 1,50,000/- + 50,000/- + 50,000/-) Rs.21,40,000/-
(Rupees Twenty one lacs forty thousand only).
8. The award is modified accordingly. It shall carry interest as
levied by the tribunal.
9. By order dated 03.06.2016, the insurance company had been
directed to deposit the entire awarded amount with interest, out of
which forty per cent (40%) was allowed to be released. The tribunal
shall now release the balance in terms of the modified award,
refunding the excess to the insurance company.
10. The statutory amount shall be refunded to the appellant
insurance company.
11. The appeal along with accompanying application stands
disposed of in above terms.
12. Dasti.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
AUGUST 23, 2017
vk
