Delhi High Court
New India Assurance Company Ltd vs Nirmala Devi & Ors. on 6 December, 2017
$~R-653
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on :- 6th December, 2017
+ MAC.APP.1181/2012 & CM No. 19072/2012
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD ..... Appellant
Through: None.
versus
NIRMALA DEVI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. The accident claim case (MACT No. 24/11), was decided by the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, by judgment dated 25.08.2012,
whereby compensation in the sum of Rs.13,34,536/- has been awarded
with interest @ 12% per annum, in favour of the first to fourth
respondents (collectively, the claimants), on account of death of
Dhina Kamti, in a motor vehicular accident that occurred on
18.08.2010, due to negligence on the part of the driver of vehicle
insured with the appellant (insurer).
2. The Tribunal included in the above said award Rs.8,64,536/-
towards loss of dependency, Rs.50,000/- for loss of consortium,
Rs.20,000/- towards funeral charges, Rs.1,00,000/- each for loss of
estate and loss of care, attention & expenses, besides Rs.2,00,000/-
under the head of loss of company, love and affection etc. The insurer
filed the present appeal questioning the said award, submitting it was
excessive.
3. The appeal was put in the list of "Regulars" as per order dated
12.02.2016. When it is called out for hearing at its own turn, there is
no appearance on behalf of the appellant.
4. The record has been perused and in view of the ruling 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., need for correction is noticed.
5. The Tribunal found from the evidence led that the deceased was
aged 45 years and thus, correctly invoked the multiplier of 14. There
was no clear proof of the income of the deceased, the claim being he
was earning his livelihood from manual labour. The Tribunal
notionally assessed the income with the help of minimum wages
(Rs.5278/-) and, correctly so, but added future prospects to the extent
of 50%, which need to be brought down to 25% in view of the ruling
in Pranay Sethi (supra). Similarly, the awards under the non-
pecuniary heads of damages need to be brought in sync with the
dispensation in Pranay Sethi (supra).
6. The loss of dependency is thus, re-computed as (5278 X
125/100 X 3/4 X 12 X 14) Rs.8,31,285/- rounded off to Rs. 8,32,000/-.
Adding Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs.15,000/- each
for loss to estate and funeral expenses, the total compensation comes
to (8,32,000 + 40,000 + 15,000 + 15,000) Rs.9,02,000/- (Rupees Nine
Lakhs and Two Thousand Only). The award is modified accordingly.
7. There are no special reasons indicated in the impugned
judgment for levy of interest @ 12% per annum, which undoubtedly is
higher than ordinary. Following the consistent view taken by this
Court, the rate of interest is increased to 9% per annum from the date
of filing of the petition till realization. [see judgment dated
22.02.2016 in MAC.APP. 165/2011 Oriental Insurance Co Ltd v.
Sangeeta Devi & Ors.].
8. By order dated 09.11.2012, the insurance company had been
directed to deposit 60% of the award amount with up-to-date interest
with the Tribunal and upon such deposit being made, it was permitted
to be released to the claimants. Since the award has been modified in
above terms, it is possible that excess amount has been released to the
claimants. If so, the excess paid will have to be refunded and in case
of default, the insurance company will have the liberty to take out
appropriate proceedings before the Tribunal. Conversely, if the
payment made is deficient, the insurance company will be obliged to
deposit the balance of its liability with the Tribunal within 30 days
making it available to be released to the claimants.
9. Since the insurance company did not appear at the final hearing
to give assistance, the statutory amount deposited is forfeited as costs
in favour of Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee.
10. The appeal and the pending application stand disposed of
accordingly.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
December 6, 2017
srb
