Delhi High Court
Icici Lombard General Insurance ... vs Pankaj Sablok & Ors. on 31 August, 2017
$~33 to 35
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision:31st August, 2017
+ MAC.APP.181/2015
ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD....Appellant
Through: Mr.Pankaj Gupta, Advocate for
Ms.Suman Bagga, Advocate.
versus
PANKAJ SABLOK & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through:
+ MAC.APP.184/2015
ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD....Appellant
Through: Mr.Pankaj Gupta, Advocate for
Ms.Suman Bagga, Advocate.
versus
KAVITA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms.Kavita Tyagi, Advocate for
Mr.Navneet Goyal, Advocate for
respondents no.4 and 5.
+ MAC.APP.186/2015 & CM 159/2016
ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD....Appellant
Through: Mr.Pankaj Gupta, Advocate for
Ms.Suman Bagga, Advocate.
versus
RAM KAWAL & ORS. ..... Respondents
MAC.APP.181/2015, 184/2015, 186/2015 Page 1 of 6
Through: Mr.Siddharth and Mr.Dinesh Kumar,
Advocates for respondents no.1 to 5.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. The appellant has challenged the common award dated 29 th October,
2014 whereby three claim petitions have been allowed by the Claims
Tribunal.
2. On 7th August, 2010 at about 01:30 AM, an accident took place on the
main Ring Road in front of Overseas Bank, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi
involving four motor vehicles. Truck bearing No.HR-66-0259 and Canter
bearing No.DL-1LK-2019 were going from Dhaula Kuan to Punjabi Bagh
side whereas TATA Sumo bearing No.HR-55-ET-2619 and Motor Cycle
bearing No.UP-15V-5747 were going from Punjabi Bagh to Dhaula Kuan
side. The accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the
truck driver which hit the Canter whereupon the Canter crossed the road
divider and overturned after hitting the TATA Sumo and the Motor Cycle
came beneath the Canter. The truck, after hitting the Canter, went to the
extreme left side and went over the left pavement. The accident resulted in
death of Virender and Sanjay Singh and injuries to Pankaj. Three separate
claim petitions were filed before the Claims Tribunal.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant urged at the time of the hearing that
the accident did not occur due to the rash and negligent driving of the truck
driver and therefore, the appellant is not liable. It is submitted that the
injured, Pankaj deposed that the accident took place due to the rash and
negligent driving of the truck driver but in his cross-examination, he stated
that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the Canter.
4. Learned counsel for the claimants submits that the accident occurred
due to rash and negligent driving of the truck. It is submitted that the FIR
has been registered against the driver of the truck and the charge-sheet has
been also filed against the truck driver.
5. The Trial Court record has been perused. From the site plan prepared
by the police, this Court is satisfied that the accident occurred due to rash
and negligent driving of the truck driver. The statement of Pankaj has not
been believed by the Claims Tribunal and this Court does not find any
infirmity with the same.
6. The appellant has also challenged the quantum of compensation
awarded in MAC Appeals bearing Nos.184/2015 and 186/2015.
7. MAC APP.184/2015 relates to the death of Sanjay, who was working
as a driver with Uday Travels earning Rs.8,500/- per month and the Claims
Tribunal has added 50% towards the future prospects to compute the loss of
dependency. Learned counsel for the appellant urged that the income has
not been duly proved and the future prospects should not be taken into
consideration. The record of the Claims Tribunal has been perused. The
deceased, Sanjay was working with Uday Travels and the salary certificate
of Uday Travels has been proved by PW-1 as Ex.PW1/5. As such, the
income has been taken as per the salary certificate. The deceased was aged
34 years at the time of the accident and the addition of 50% towards the
future prospects is according to the well settled principles.
8. In MAC.APP. No.186/2015, the deceased Virender Giri, aged 25
years, was unmarried. The Claims Tribunal has taken minimum wages,
added 50% towards future prospects, deducted one-fourth towards personal
expenses and applied the multiplier of 18 to the compensation. Learned
counsel for the appellant urged that the addition of future prospects be set
aside, the deduction be reduced from one-fourth to one-half and multiplier of
14 be applied for the age of deceased. Learned counsel for the claimants
urged that addition of 50% towards future prospects is according to well
settled principles. It is submitted that the deceased was survived by his
parents, three minor brothers and sisters and therefore, deduction of one-
fourth towards personal expenses was justified.
9. The Trial Court record has been perused. The deceased, Virender was
a driver earning Rs.7000/- per month. However, the Claims Tribunal took
his minimum wages in respect of an unskilled person. The Claims Tribunal
added 50% towards future prospects and took the income of the deceased as
Rs.7,917/- (Rs.5,278 + 50%). There is no infirmity in the addition of 50%
towards future prospects. Even otherwise, the income of the deceased can be
presumed as Rs.7,917/- considering that the deceased was a driver and his
father deposed that he was earning Rs.7,000/- at the time of the accident.
The deceased has left behind five legal representatives, namely his parents
and three brothers and sisters who were dependent upon him. The deduction
towards personal expenses is increased from 1/4th to 1/3rd and the multiplier
is reduced from 18 to 14 according to the age of the mother of the deceased.
Taking the income of the deceased as Rs.7,917/- deducting 1/3rd towards his
personal expenses and applying the multiplier of 14, the loss of dependency
is computed as Rs.8,86,704/-.
10. Learned counsel for the claimants seek enhancement of rate of interest
from 7.5% to 9% per annum. There is merit in the contention of learned
counsel for the claimants since this Court is consistently awarding interest @
9% per annum. The rate of interest is therefore, enhanced from 7.5% to 9%
in all the appeals.
11. The MAC.APP. 181/2015 and MAC.APP.184/2015 are dismissed.
MAC.APP. 186/2015 is allowed and the compensation amount is reduced
from Rs.15,17,554/- to Rs.11,21,704/-. The rate of interest is enhanced from
7.5% to 9% in all the three appeals. The pending applications are disposed
of.
12. The Accounts Officer of this Court shall calculate the amount to be
refunded back in MAC.APP. 186/2015.
13. List for directions on 10th October, 2017.
14. Learned counsel for the claimants shall produce the copies of the
passbooks of the savings bank accounts of the claimants in which the
interest amount of the FDRs is being released on the next date of hearing.
15. If the savings bank accounts of the claimants are not near the place of
their residence, they shall open new savings bank accounts near the place of
their residence and produce the passbooks before this Court on the next date
of hearing. The concerned bank shall make an endorsement on the passbook
that no cheque book or debit card shall be issued without the permission of
this Court.
16. The statutory amount be refunded back to the appellants in all the
cases.
CM 31574/2017 in MAC.APP.186/2015
17. Issue notice. Learned counsel for the appellant accepts notice.
18. The claimants are directed to open savings bank accounts near the
place of their residence.
19. The bank near the place of their residence shall open the savings bank
accounts in the name of the claimants before the next date of hearing as per
the particulars given in their Aadhaar card/PAN card. The concerned bank
shall make an endorsement on the passbooks that no cheque book or debit
card shall be issued without the permission of this Court.
20. Copy of this judgment be given dasti to counsels for the parties under
the signature of the Court Master.
AUGUST 31, 2017 J.R. MIDHA, J.
P
