Delhi High Court
United India Insurance Company ... vs Sarita Devi & Ors. on 4 December, 2017
$~R-633
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 4th December, 2017
+ MAC APPEAL No.1129/2012
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
... Appellant
Through: Mr. Shoumik Mazumdar, Advocate
versus
SARITA DEVI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Nemo.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. Ram Naresh Mishra was travelling in a tempo bearing
registration No.HR63A-2814 when it met with an accident on
18.06.2009 resulting in he suffering injuries and dying in the
consequence. On accident claim case (MACT No.1184/2010),
instituted by first to seventh respondents (collectively, the claimants),
the tribunal held inquiry and, by judgment dated 10.05.2012, awarded
compensation in the total sum of Rs.19,35,120/-, fastening the
liability on the appellant (insurer), it admittedly having issued an
insurance policy covering third party risk in respect of the offending
vehicle. The said amount was calculated it being inclusive of
Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.1,75,000/- towards loss of
estate, Rs.50,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs.2,00,000/-
towards loss of love, affection, guidance, frustration, etc., besides Rs.
14,85,120/- towards loss of dependency, the plea of the insurer about
the deceased being a gratuitous passenger having been rejected, the
tribunal also adding the liability of payment of Rs.51,000/- towards
counsel fee on the insurer.
2. The appeal at hand is pressed to question the non-pecuniary
damages as mentioned above and the liability for counsel fee as
inappropriate. The insurer also re-agitates that the deceased was a
gratuitous passenger and, therefore, liability should not have been
placed at its door.
3. Following the ruling of the 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 non-
pecuniary damages as noted above cannot be upheld and in lieu
thereof, Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs.15,000/- each
towards loss to estate and funeral expenses are added.
The award of compensation is, thus, reduced to (14,85,120/- +
40,000/- + 15,000/- + 15,000/-) Rs.15,55,120/- rounded off to
Rs.15,56,000/-. Needless to add, the amount shall carry interest as
levied by the tribunal.
There being no justification for such inclusion, the directions for
payment of counsel fee is set aside.
4. As noted by the tribunal in the impugned judgment, the
deceased was travelling with the goods of the employer. Therefore,
he was a representative of the owner of the goods carried in the
vehicle and not a gratuitous passenger. The plea to this effect is
rejected.
5. By order dated 09.01.2013, the insurer was directed to deposit
the entire awarded amount along with interest with UCO Bank, Delhi
High Court, New Delhi, out of which fifty per cent (50%) was
ordered to be released to the claimants. The registry shall now re-
calculate the award as per modification ordered above, releasing the
balance lying in deposit along with interest to the claimants in terms
of the impugned award, refunding the excess to the insurer along with
proportionate interest.
6. The statutory amount shall also be refunded to the appellant.
7. The appeal stands disposed of in above terms.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
DECEMBER 04, 2017
vk
