Delhi High Court
National Insurance Company Ltd. vs Dil Aaferoon Begum & Ors. on 1 December, 2017
$~35
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 1st December, 2017
+ MAC APPEAL 386/2017 and CM 15479/2017 and 43881/2017
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. ..... Appellant
Through: Ms. Hetu Arora Sethi, Advocate
versus
DIL AAFEROON BEGUM & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Mohini, Advocate for R-9
& 10
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. Mohd. Zuvair, a bachelor, aged 22 years, suffered injuries in a
motor vehicular accident that occurred on 07.08.2014 due to negligent
driving of a motor vehicle described as truck bearing registration
no.DL-1M-6011 and died in the consequence. On the accident claim
case (MACP 187/2014), instituted by the first to eight respondents,
they including the parents and siblings of the deceased, the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal (Tribunal) held inquiry and, by judgment
dated 15.02.2014, awarded compensation in the total sum of
Rs.22,69,000/-. The liability to pay the said amount with interest at
the rate of 9% p.a. has been fastened on the appellant (insurer), it
admittedly having issued an insurance policy covering third party risk
in respect of the truck for the period in question.
2. By the appeal at hand, the insurer questions the calculation of
compensation submitting that the tribunal fell into error in computing
the loss of dependency by adopting the minimum wages prevalent in
Union Territory of Delhi ignoring the fact that the deceased was
resident of Uttar Pradesh; that the element of future prospects to the
extent of 50% were wrongly added; that the multiplier should have
been adopted according to the age of the claimant parents and not as
per the age of the deceased; and that the non-pecuniary damages in the
amounts of Rs.2,00,000/- towards loss of love and affection,
Rs.1,00,000/- for loss to estate and Rs.25,000/- for funeral expenses
are excessive.
3. The contention about the minimum wages of Delhi being
inappropriate is to be rejected for the simple reason the claimants had
shown to the tribunal that the deceased was working for gain in a
private company M/s. Rinku Transport in Delhi. It may be that they
were unable to bring home any clear and cogent evidence about the
level of earnings but that does not detract from the fact that he was
working for gain in Delhi. Following the dispensation of a
Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court rendered on 31.10.2017 in
SLP (C) 25590/2014, National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay
Sethi and Ors., the contention about the future prospects must be
accepted and the same be restricted to 40%. However, following the
declaration of law in Pranay Sethi (supra), endorsing the previous
ruling of the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport
Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121, the exception taken to the
multiplier is incorrect. Similarly, non-pecuniary damages have to be
brought in sync with the ruling in Pranay Sethi (supra). It is noted that
the deceased was a student of the course leading to the degree of
Bachelor of Arts. In this view, the minimum wages payable to a
matriculate (Rs.10,374/-) would deserve to be adopted. The
submission of the claimants that deduction on account of personal and
living expenses be made as per the number of claimants cannot be
accepted. The siblings are dependents of the father, the claim being
on account of death of a bachelor, 50% deduction on this account is in
accord with the ruling in Sarla Verma (supra).
4. The loss of dependency is recalculated as [Rs.10,374/- x
140/100 / 2 x 12 x 18] Rs.15,68,548.8, rounded off to Rs.15,69,000/-
(Rupees Fifteen lakh and sixty nine thousand only).
5. In view of the dispensation in Pranay Sethi (supra), Rs.15,000/-
each is added towards loss to estate and funeral expenses. Thus, the
total compensation is computed as [Rs.15,69,000/- + Rs.15,000/- +
Rs.15,000/-] Rs.15,99,000/- (Rupees Fifteen lakh and ninety nine
thousand only). The award is modified accordingly. It shall carry
interest as levied by the tribunal.
6. The apportionment of the award as directed by the tribunal will
prevail.
7. By order dated 25.04.2017, the insurance company had been
directed to deposit the entire awarded amount with interest accrued
thereon which deposit was directed to be put in fixed deposit receipt.
The Registry shall calculate the amount payable to the claimants in
terms of the modified award and refund the excess in deposit with
statutory deposit to the insurance company.
8. The appeal and the pending applications stand disposed of in
above terms.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
DECEMBER 01, 2017
yg
