Delhi High Court
Reliance General Insurance Co. ... vs Rekha Balyan & Ors. on 7 December, 2017
$~25
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 07th December, 2016
+ MAC.APP. 84/2015
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Shantha Devi Raman,
Mr.Arbaaz Hussain, Advs.
Versus
REKHA BALYAN & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. V.K. Vashistha, Adv. for
respondents no.1 and 2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. The appellant has challenged the award of the Claims Tribunal
whereby compensation of Rs.17,55,000/- has been awarded to
respondents no.1 and 2.
2. The accident dated 8th March, 2011 resulted in the death of the
Robin Balyan. The deceased was going from Rajender Nagar to
Noida on his motor cycle No.DL-13SC-6006 and was hit by truck
No.HR-58-9864 on Mohan Nagar crossing at Sahibabad. The
deceased was crushed under the wheels of the truck and was taken to
Narender Mohan Hospital where he was declared brought dead. The
deceased was aged 23 years at the time of the accident and was
survived by his parents who filed the claim petition before the Claims
Tribunal. The deceased had completed BBA (CAM) in 2009 from
Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University, Delhi and had enrolled
himself with IBS, Gurgaon for post-graduate course. The documents
relating to his education are on the record of the Claims Tribunal. The
deceased was also running a coaching centre earning Rs.10,000/- to
12,000/- per month.
3. The Claims Tribunal took the income of the deceased as
Rs.10,000/- per month, added 50% towards future prospects, deducted
50% towards his personal expenses and applied the multiplier of 18 to
compute the loss of dependency at Rs.16,20,000/-. The Claims
Tribunal awarded Rs.1 lakh towards loss of love and affection,
Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.25,000/- towards funeral
expenses. The total compensation awarded is Rs.17,55,000/-.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged at the time of the
hearing of the appeal that there was no proof of income and therefore,
the minimum wages of Rs.8,060/- should be taken into consideration.
It is further submitted that the future prospects should not be taken
into consideration and the multiplier of 15 be applied according to the
age of the mother. It is next submitted that the deceased was
contributory negligent and the compensation is liable to be reduced on
this account also. It is lastly submitted that the penal interest of 12%
be set aside.
5. Learned counsel for respondents no.1 and 2 submits that the
compensation awarded to respondents no.1 and 2 is just, fair and
reasonable and does not warrant any reduction.
6. The Claims Tribunal has held the driver of the offending
vehicle negligent on the basis of the testimony of the eye witness who
appeared as PW-2 and the record of the police produced before the
Claims Tribunal. No evidence was led to rebut the said evidence. In
that view of the matter, there is no infirmity in the finding of
negligence of the Claims Tribunal.
7. With respect to the quantum of compensation awarded by the
Claims Tribunal, this Court is of the view that the deceased had
completed his BBA (CAM) and was pursuing post-graduate course for
which his father had taken an education loan of Rs.3,90,000/-. In such
a case, it was not proper on the part of the Claims Tribunal to assume
his income as Rs.10,000/-. In the case of Municipal Corporation of
Delhi v. Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy, AIR 2012 SC
100, 59 persons died in Uphaar tragedy in 1997 and the Supreme
Court granted compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- to the victims above 20
years of age by taking their income as Rs.8,333/- per month whereas
the minimum wages at the relevant time were less than Rs.2600/-. The
findings of the Supreme Court are reproduced hereunder:-
"38. ... It can be by way of making monetary amounts
for the wrong done or by way of exemplary damages,
exclusive of any amount recoverable in a civil action
based on tortuous liability. But in such a case it is
improper to assume admittedly without any basis, that
every person who visits a cinema theatre and purchases
a balcony ticket should be of a high income group
person. In the year 1997, Rs. 15,000 per month was
rather a high income. The movie was a new movie with
patriotic undertones. It is known that zealous movie
goers, even from low income groups, would not mind
purchasing a balcony ticket to enjoy the film on the first
day itself. To make a sweeping assumption that every
person who purchased a balcony class ticket in 1997
should have had a monthly income of Rs. 15,000 and on
that basis apply high multiplier of 15 to determine the
compensation at a uniform rate of Rs. 18 lakhs in the
case of persons above the age of 20 years and Rs. 15
lakhs for persons below that age, as a public law
remedy, may not be proper. While awarding
compensation to a large group of persons, by way of
public law remedy, it will be unsafe to use a high
income as the determinative factor. The reliance upon
Neelabati Behera (AIR 1993 SC 1960 : 1993 AIR SCW
2366) in this behalf is of no assistance as that case
related to a single individual and there was specific
evidence available in regard to the income. Therefore,
the proper course would be to award a uniform amount
keeping in view the principles relating to award of
compensation in public law remedy cases reserving
liberty to the legal heirs of deceased victims to claim
additional amount wherever they were not satisfied with
the amount awarded. Taking note of the facts and
circumstances, the amount of compensation awarded
in public law remedy cases, and the need to provide a
deterrent, we are of the view that award of Rs. 10 lakhs
in the case of persons aged above 20 years and Rs. 7.5
lakhs in regard to those who were 20 years or below as
on the date of the incident, would be appropriate. We
do not propose to disturb the award of Rs. 1 lakh each
in the case of injured. The amount awarded as
compensation will carry interest at the rate of 9% per
annum from the date of writ petition as ordered by the
High Court, reserve liberty to the victims or the LRs. of
the victims as the case may be to seek higher remedy
wherever they are not satisfied with the compensation.
Any increase shall be borne by the Licensee (theatre
owner) exclusively."
(Emphasis Supplied)"
8. This Court is of the view that considering the educational
qualifications of the deceased, the income of the deceased can be
taken as Rs.19,000/-. Deducting 50% toward personal expenses and
applying the multiplier of 15, the loss of dependency would be
Rs.17,10,000/- which is more than the compensation awarded by the
Claims Tribunal, meaning thereby that even if the future prospects are
not taken into consideration on Rs.19,000/- and the multiplier is
reduced from 18 to 15, the compensation amount would be more than
the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal. Since respondents'
no.1 and 2 are not seeking any enhancement, this appeal is put at rest
by upholding the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal.
9. Applying the principles laid down in Section 167 of the Indian
Evidence Act, this Court upholds the compensation awarded by the
Claims Tribunal on the grounds mentioned hereinabove. However,
the penal interest of 12% imposed by the Claims Tribunal is set aside
since the appellant had filed the appeal before this Court.
10. The appeal is partially allowed to the extent of set aside the
penal interest of 12%. The appellant has deposited the entire award
amount with UCO Bank, Karkardooma Courts Branch.
11. List for disbursement of the amount on 23rd December, 2016.
12. Respondents no.1 and 2 shall remain present in Court on the
next date of hearing.
13. UCO Bank, Karkardooma Courts Branch shall confirm the
amount lying deposit with it. UCO Bank, Karkardooma Courts
Branch shall furnish the relevant information to counsel for
respondents no.1 and 2.
14. Copy of this judgment be given dasti to the learned counsels of
the parties.
DECEMBER 07, 2016 J.R. MIDHA, J.
dk
