Delhi High Court
Reliance General Insurance ... vs Jai Prakash & Ors. on 8 December, 2017
$~R-676
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 8th December, 2017
+ MAC. APP. 1232/2012 & CM No.20098/2012
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Pankaj Seth, Advocate
versus
JAI PRAKASH & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Meraj Khan, Advocate with
Ms. Ashmita Aggarwal, Adv. for R-1
to R-3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. Motor accident claim case (MACT No.80/2011), which was
instituted by first to third respondents (the claimants) on 03.03.2011
prayed for award of compensation under Sections 166 and 140 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 on account of death of Amit Kumar, a
bachelor aged 23 years, in a motor vehicular accident that occurred on
06.01.2011, due to negligent driving of vehicle bearing registration
No.DL-4C-AH-8068. The tribunal accepted the said case by the
impugned order dated 20.09.2012 and awarded Rs.20,92,000/- as
compensation, calculating it thus:-
Sl.No. Heads Amount (in Rs.)
1. Loss of dependency 17,22,000/-
2. Funeral charges 25,000/-
3. Loss of estate 75,000/-
4. Loss of consortium 50,000/-
5. Loss of love, company and affection, etc. 1,50,000/-
6. Loss of gratuitous service 70,000/-
Total 20,92,000/-
2. The liability to pay compensation with interest @ 9% per
annum was fastened by the tribunal on the appellant (insurer) it
admittedly having issued the insurance policy for third party risk in
respect of the offending vehicle.
3. The insurer presses the appeal to question the award assailing
the calculation of loss of dependency by deduction of one-third
towards personal and living expenses and addition of future prospects
of increase in income to the extent of 50%. It also assails the non-
pecuniary damages, referring in such context to 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.
4. It is noted that the tribunal had found on the basis of evidence
that the deceased was employed as a store keeper in a private company
at salary of Rs.10,250/- per month. In this view exception to the
inclusion of future prospects of increase in income to the extent of
50% cannot be accepted. However, there is merit in the contention
that, it being a case for compensation on account of death of a
bachelor, the deduction on account of personal and living expenses
should be restricted to 50%. At the same time, it is noted that the
tribunal fell into error by adopting the multiplier of 14, as per the age
of the claimant. The multiplier should be chosen as per the age of the
deceased and, thus, appropriate multiplier would be 18.
5. The loss of dependency is recalculated as (10,250/- x 150/100 x
1/2 x 12 x 18) Rs.16,60,500/- rounded off to Rs.16,61,000/-. In view
of dispensation in Pranay Sethi (supra), in lieu of non-pecuniary
damages granted by the tribunal, Rs.15,000/- each is added towards
loss of estate and funeral expenses.
6. Thus, the total compensation comes to (16,61,000/- + 15,000/- +
15,000/-) Rs.16,91,000/- (Rupees Sixteen Lacs Ninety One Thousand
Only).
7. The award is reduced accordingly, it shall carry interest as
levied by the tribunal.
8. By order dated 03.12.2012, the insurer was directed to deposit,
50% of the awarded amount with upto date interest with the tribunal
and on such deposit the said amount was ordered to be released to the
claimants. The insurer is directed to satisfy the remainder of its
liability in terms of modification ordered above, by requisite deposit
along with upto date interest with the tribunal within thirty days,
making it available to be released to the claimants in terms of the
impugned award.
9. The statutory deposit shall be refunded to the insurer only after
proof of award having been satisfied is shown.
10. The appeal along with pending application stand disposed of in
above terms.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
DECEMBER 08, 2017
vk
