Delhi High Court
Reliance General Insurance ... vs Braham Singh & Ors. on 8 December, 2017
$~47
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 08th December, 2017
+ MAC.APP.1077/2017 and C.M. Appl. 44580/2017
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Prerna Mehta, Advocate
versus
BRAHAM SINGH & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA
J U D G M E N T (ORAL)
1. The appellant has challenged the award dated 26th October, 2017
whereby compensation of Rs.8,89,000/- has been awarded to respondents
No.1 to 7.
2. The accident dated 07th June, 2009 resulted in the death of Ram Wati.
The deceased was aged 44 years at the time of the accident and was survived
by her husband, four daughters and two sons who filed the claim for
compensation before the Claims Tribunal.
3. The Claims Tribunal took the minimum wages of Rs.3,934/- per
month in respect of an unskilled worker as the income of the deceased,
deducted 1/5th towards the personal expenses and applied the multiplier of
14 to compute the loss of dependency as Rs.5,28,729/-. The Claims
Tribunal awarded Rs.1,50,000/- towards loss of love and affection,
Rs.1,50,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs.50,000/- towards loss of estate
and Rs.10,000/- towards funeral expenses. The total compensation awarded
was Rs.8,89,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant urged at the time of hearing that the
compensation awarded towards loss of love and affection, loss of consortium
and loss of estate be reduced. The appellant also seeks reduction of the rate
of interest from 9% to 6%.
5. This Court is of the view that the Claims Tribunal ought to have taken
the future prospects into consideration. This Court is further of the view that
1/5th deduction towards the personal expenses is not warranted in view of the
judgment of the Supreme Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Gopali,
2012 (6) SCALE 534 where the Supreme Court allowed deduction of 1/10th
in case of nine dependents. The relevant portion of the judgment is
reproduced here under:
"18. Here, we are dealing with a case in which the deceased had 8
dependents including four sons and one daughter. The question which
arises for our consideration is whether in 1992 a person having an
income of less than Rs.3,000/- and a family of 9 could think of
spending 1/3rd of his income on himself. On a conservative estimate,
it is possible to say, he would have spent at least 50% of the income
on the purchase of foodgrains, milk, etc., and for payment of water,
electricity and other bills. 25% of the income would have been spent
on the education of children which would have included
school/college fee, cost of books, etc. 15% of the income would have
been used for meeting other family necessities, like, clothes, medical
expenses, etc. He would have then been left with 10% of his income, a
portion of which could be used to meet unforeseen contingencies and
on the occasion of festivals. In this scenario, any deduction towards
personal expenses would be unrealistic. In any case, where the family
of the deceased comprised of 5 persons or more having an income of
Rs.3,000/- to Rs.5,000/-, it is virtually impossible for him to spend
more than 1/10th of the total income upon himself.
19. What we have observed hereinabove may not apply to rich
people living in urban areas who can afford to spend a substantial
amount of their income in clubs, hotels and on drinks parties. In those
cases, there may be a semblance of justification in applying the rule of
1/3rd deduction but it would be wholly unrealistic to universally apply
that rule in all cases."
6. This Court is of the view that no reduction is warranted in the facts
and circumstances of this case considering that reduction under the head of
loss of love and affection, loss of consortium and loss of estate would be
neutralized by the enhancement under the heads of future prospects and
deduction of personal expenses of the deceased. That apart in 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 Supreme Court
applied the multiplier of 15 to award compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- by
multiplier method. Uphaar Tragedy took place in the year 1997 whereas the
accident in question has taken place in the year 2009 and the compensation
of Rs.8,89,000/- has been awarded to the family of the deceased.
7. There is no merit in the second contention raised by learned counsel
for the appellant with respect to the rate of interest. The Supreme Court as
well as this Court have consistently awarded interest @ 9% per annum.
Reference be made to Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Association of
Victims of Uphaar Tragedy (supra).
8. It is noted that the accident in question took place in June, 2009 and
the Claims Tribunal took 8 years to decide the claim petition and the family
of the deceased is waiting for compensation for the last 8 years. The
challenge to this award by the insurance company is unwarranted. The
appellant company shall re-visit its policy to challenge such awards.
9. The Claims Tribunal shall disburse the compensation amount in terms
of the Clause 26 of the Modified Claims Tribunal Procedure. However,
before disbursing the compensation amount, the Claims Tribunal shall direct
the bank in which the claimants have their savings bank accounts, not to
issue cheque books/debit cards to the claimants and if the same have already
been issued direct, the bank be directed to cancel the cheque books/ debit
cards to the claimants and make an endorsement on the passbooks that no
cheque book/debit card shall be issued to the claimants without the
permission of this Court. The claimants shall produce the copy of this order
before the concerned banks whereupon the bank shall make an endorsement
on the passbook. The claimants shall produce the original passbooks with
the necessary endorsement on the next date of hearing.
10. The appeal as well as the application is dismissed.
11. Copy of this judgment be sent to the claimants.
12. Copy of this judgment be sent to the Claims Tribunal for compliance.
13. Copy of this order be given dasti to counsel for the appellant under
signatures of the Court Master.
DECEMMBER 08, 2017 J.R. MIDHA, J.
Rsk
