Delhi High Court
Reliance General Insurance Co Ltd vs Renu Chaudhary & Ors on 6 December, 2017
$~R-654
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on :- 6th December, 2017
+ MAC.APP.1182/2012
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD .....Appellant
Through: Mr. A.K. Soni, Advocate.
versus
RENU CHAUDHARY & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. Subodh Kumar, then aged less than 45 years old (born on
02.07.1965), working for gain in a private company (M/s Sona Koyo
Steering Systems Ltd.), suffered injuries in motor vehicular accident
that occurred on 31.03.2010, due to negligent driving of Tractor
bearing registration No. HR-29H-7976 and died in consequence. His
wife and three other members of the family dependent upon him
(collectively, the claimants, being first to fourth respondents)
instituted accident claim case (Suit No.267/10) on 26.05.2010 seeking
compensation.
2. The Tribunal, by its judgment dated 13.08.2012, held that the
accident and death had been caused due to negligent driving of the
said vehicle. It awarded compensation in the total sum of
Rs.55,75,000/-, directing the insurer (the appellant) of the offending
vehicle to pay with interest @ 7.5% per annum to the claimants, the
said amount inclusive of Rs.10,000/- each towards funeral expenses,
loss of consortium and loss to estate and Rs.25,000/- towards loss of
love and affection.
3. The insurer, by the appeal at hand, questions the finding on the
issue of negligence submitting that there was no evidence led in this
regard. It also questions, the calculation of loss of dependency on the
ground, that the father (the fourth respondent) has been wrongly
treated as dependent.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant has been heard and with
his assistance, the record perused.
5. It is noted that the Tribunal has gone by the principle of res ipsa
loquitur, taking into account the facts and circumstances relating to
the accident, there being no evidence led on the contrary by any of the
party respondents. In these circumstances, the said finding does not
call for any interference.
6. The claimants had led evidence, inter alia, by examining the
first of them, namely, Renu Chaudhary (PW-1), who deposed on the
strength of her affidavit (Ex.PW1/1) affirming the claim case. No
effort was made at that stage to bring out any facts to show that the
father could not be a claimant on account of he being self reliant.
Therefore, the question raised on account of loss of dependency is
repelled.
7. It is, however, noted that the non-pecuniary damages awarded
by the Tribunal are not in sync with the dispensation in a ruling of
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. Thus, in lieu of the awards granted by the Tribunal,
Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs.15,000/- each towards
loss of estate and funeral expenses are added. Consequently, the
award would need to be increased by Rs.15,000/-. It is raised to
Rs.55,90,000/- (Rupees Fifty Five Lakhs and Ninety Thousand Only).
Needless to add, it shall carry interest as levied by the Tribunal.
8. The argument about the breach of terms and conditions of the
insurance policy on the ground that Tractor is an agricultural vehicle
has been properly dealt with by the Tribunal, particularly with
reference to the admission of Sh. Navneet Goel (R3W1) examined by
the insurer to the effect that there is no requirement of any permit in
respect of said vehicle. The plea is, thus, rejected.
9. By order dated 09.11.2012, the insurance company had been
directed to deposit 80% of the awarded amount with up to date interest
with UCO bank, Delhi High Court Branch. By order dated
29.04.2013, 50% of the deposited amount was permitted to be released
to the claimants. The registry shall release the balance lying in deposit
with accrued interest to the claimants in terms of the judgment of the
Tribunal. The insurance company shall satisfy the enhanced amount
by requisite deposit with the Tribunal within 30 days.
10. The statutory amount be refunded to the insurer after proof of
award having been satisfied is shown.
11. The appeal stands disposed of in above terms.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
December 6, 2017//srb
