Delhi High Court
Savitri Devi & Ors vs Ashok Kumar Dixit & Ors (Shriram ... on 24 August, 2017
$~8
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 24th August, 2017
+ MAC.APP. 361/2017
SAVITRI DEVI & ORS ..... Appellants
Through: Mr. S.N.Parashar, Advocate
versus
ASHOK KUMAR DIXIT & ORS (SHRIRAM GENERAL
INSURANCE CO LTD) ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. M.K. Perwez, Advocate for R-3.
Mr. Priyadarsi Acharya, Adv. with
Mohd. Mustafa, Advocate for R-4.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. Chandra Bhoosan @ Chintu, aged 20 years, a bachelor, suffered
injuries and died in the consequence in a motor vehicular accident that
occurred on 17.10.2015 at 8:45 p.m., involving negligent driving of
truck bearing registration No.DL-1GB-7218, admittedly insured
against third party risk with the fourth respondent (insurer). His
parents, the appellants before this Court, instituted accident claim case
(MAC Petition No.1772/2016) on 02.03.2016 seeking compensation.
2. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Tribunal) after
inquiry, by judgment dated 15.11.2016, awarded compensation in the
sum of Rs.9,11,164/- (Rupees Nine Lakhs Eleven Thousand One
Hundred & Sixty Four Only) and directed the fourth respondent to pay
the same with interest @ twelve per cent (12%) per annum.
3. The appellants have come up arguing that the loss of
dependency was not properly worked out as the multiplier of 11 has
been chosen on the basis of age of the mother (51 years) and not as per
the age of the deceased, and that the element of future prospects of
increase were not factored in. It is also their submission that the non-
pecuniary damages are inadequate.
4. Per contra, the insurance company argues that the award is
appropriate but the rate of interest levied @ twelve per cent (12%) per
annum is unreasonably excessive.
5. On the issue of choice of the multiplier in the case of death of a
bachelor, this Court by another decision passed today (24 th August,
2017) in MAC APP.467/2016, titled Reliance General Insurance
Company Limited vs. Gomti & Ors., has observed as under:-
"6. The question as to the choice of multiplier in cases of
deaths of bachelors, had come up before this Court in
MAC appeal No. 431/2016 National Insurance Co. Ltd.
vs. Mohd. Siddique & Ors. decided on 18th July, 2017,
where it was urged on behalf of the insurance company
that the law laid down by the Supreme Court in cases of
General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport
Corporation vs. Susamma Thomas & Ors., (1994) 2 SCC
176 and U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and
Ors. vs. Trilok Chandra and Ors., (1996) 4 SCC 362
continues to prevail as the binding precedent. This
Court, after examining the issue in light of the decisions
in aforementioned cases and in the cases of Reshma
Kumari vs. Madan Mohan (2013) 9 SCC 65 and noting
the dicta in Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community
& Anr. v. State of Maharashtra & Anr., (2005) 2 SCC 67;
Safiya Bee v. Mohd. Vajahath Hussain @ Fasi, (2011) 2
SCC 94 and Union of India & Ors. v. S.K. Kapoor,
(2011) 4 SCC 589, 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"."
6. Since the age of the mother was higher, naturally so, the choice
of the multiplier made by the tribunal on its basis cannot be grudged.
7. It is noted that no formal and cogent evidence about nature of
engagement of the deceased was adduced. In this view the tribunal had
no option but to go by the minimum wages of a skilled worker
(11,154/-). The calculation of loss of dependency, thus, is found to be
appropriate.
8. Following the view taken in MAC.APP.No.160/2015, titled
Shriram General Insurance Co Ltd v. Usha decided by this court on
05.05.2016, having regard to the date of accident, the awards under
the non-pecuniary damages by the tribunal are found to be deficient.
The said heads are increased to Rs.1,50,000/- towards loss of love &
affection and Rs.50,000/- each towards funeral expenses and loss of
estate are awarded. This would mean, the award would need to be
increased by Rs.75,000/- (Seventy five thousand only).
9. Ordered accordingly.
10. The tribunal has not given any specific reason for levy of
interest @ twelve per cent (12%) per annum which is way over and
above the ordinary. Following the consistent view taken by this Court
[see judgment dated 22.02.2016 in MAC.APP. 165/2011 Oriental
Insurance Co Ltd v. Sangeeta Devi & Ors.], the rate of interest is
reduced to nine per cent (9%) per annum from the date of filing of the
petition till realization.
11. It has been submitted that the insurance company had made the
requisite deposit with the tribunal in terms of the judgment passed, out
of which some portion has already been released to the claimant, the
balance lying in fixed deposit receipt. The amount to be released to the
claimant shall be in terms of the modification ordered above. The
tribunal will re-calculate the amount payable to the claimants in terms
of the modified award and call upon the insurance company to pay the
balance, if any, or refund the excess, if any.
12. The appeal stands disposed of in above terms.
13. Dasti.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
AUGUST 24, 2017
vk
