Delhi High Court
The New India Assurance Co Ltd vs Monika Sekhon & Ors on 16 January, 2017
$~37
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 16th January, 2017
+ MAC.APP.1139/2013
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Shoumik Mazumdar, Adv.
versus
MONIKA SEKHON & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Atul Rathi and Mr. Nitinjya
Chaudhary, Adv.
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.13,12,000/- has been awarded to
respondents No.1 to 3.
2. The accident dated 05th July, 2005 resulted in the death of
Vikram Singh. The deceased was aged 33 years at the time of accident
and was survived by his widow and two minor daughters who filed the
claim petition before the Claims Tribunal. The deceased was self
employed in the business of sale and purchase of automobiles. It was
claimed that he was earning Rs.15,000/- per month. However, Claims
Tribunal took income of the deceased as Rs.6,000/- on the basis of
income tax returns, added 50% towards future prospects, deducted
1/3rd towards personal expenses and applied the multiplier of 16 to
compute the loss of dependency as Rs.11,52,000/-. The Claims
Tribunal awarded Rs.50,000/- towards loss of love and affection,
Rs.50,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs.50,000/- towards loss of
estate and Rs.10,000/- towards funeral expenses. The total
compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is Rs.13,12,000/-.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged at the time of hearing
that the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is on higher
side. It is further submitted that future prospects of 50% be set aside. It
is further submitted that income of the deceased be reduced from
Rs.6,000/- on the ground that the shop in which deceased carrying
business may still be operational. The appellant seeks recovery rights
against the respondents No.4 and 5 on the ground that the driving
licence of the driver was fake. The appellant also seeks reduction of
the rate of interest from 12% to 9%.
4. With respect to the quantum of compensation awarded by the
Claims Tribunal, this Court is of the view that the compensation
awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just, fair and reasonable and does
not warrant any reduction. The Claims Tribunal has taken the income
of the deceased on the basis of his income tax returns. There is no
infirmity in addition of 50% considering that deceased was aged 33
years at the time of accident.
5. The appellant examined the witness from R.T.O. Muradabad
who deposed that the alleged driving licence in the name of the driver
was registered in the name of one Mahipal. The appellant also
examined the Senior Assistant of its company who proved the notice
under Order XII Rule 8 of CPC as Ex.R3W3/1 to Ex.R3W3/4. The
driver of the offending vehicle produced the copy of the driving
licence bearing No. M-19285/MBD/92 along with the verification
report issued by RTO, Muradabad which certified that the aforesaid
driving licence issued by Road Transport Authority was valid from
29th May, 2001 to 28th June, 2015. The appellant did not lead any
evidence to rebut the aforesaid driving licence and the RTO report
produced by the driver of the offending vehicle. In that view of the
matter, the appellant is not to the recovery rights against the
respondents No.4 and 5.
6. There is merit in the appeal which is hereby dismissed. The
compensation of Rs.13,12,000/- along with interest @ 9% is upheld.
However, the penal rate of interest @ 12% is set aside. The statutory
amount be refunded back to the appellant.
7. The appellant has deposited the entire award amount with the
Claims Tribunal out of which 80% award amount has been released to
respondents No.1 to 3 in terms of the order dated 13 th December,
2013.
8. List for disbursement of balance 20% of the award amount on
11th April, 2017.
9. Respondents No.1 to 3 shall remain present in Court on the next
date of hearing along with the particulars of their savings bank
account near the place of their residence.
10. Copy of this judgment be given dasti to learned counsels for the
parties.
JANUARY 16, 2017 J.R. MIDHA, J.
ak
