Delhi High Court
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Anisa Begum & Ors. on 11 July, 2017
$~8
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 11th July, 2017
+ MAC APPEAL No. 311/2009 & CM No. 9048/2009
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. ..... Appellant
Through: Ms. Neerja Sachdeva, Adv.
versus
ANISA BEGUM & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. Riyasat Ali, born on 12.06.1971, working as a Lower Division
Clerk with Central Ordinance Depot, Delhi Cantt. at gross
emoluments of Rs. 9640/- per month, died in a motor vehicular
accident that occurred on 22.02.2006, statedly due to negligent driving
of truck bearing No. HR 63 5617, insured with the appellant company
(insurer) against third party risk. His legal heirs, first to sixth
respondents (collectively, the claimants) took out accident claim
proceedings (MACT suit No. 128/09/06) on 01.05.2006. The motor
accident claims tribunal, after inquiry, by judgment dated 30.03.2009,
upheld the case of death being on account of negligent driving of the
truck and awarded compensation in the sum of Rs. 28,97,000/- with
interest directing the insurance company to pay.
2. The insurance company filed the present appeal assailing the
mode of computation of the compensation.
3. The claimants having been served, the appeal was admitted and
directed to be shown in the list of 'regulars' to come up on its own
turn. Earlier, by order dated 07.07.2009, the execution of the award
was stayed subject to the insurance company making the payment of
Rs. 20 lakhs along with interest within the period specified. The said
amount was directed to be released in accordance with the terms
indicated at that stage. The proceedings recorded on 24.11.2009
indicate that the appellant deposited Rs.23,50,547/- with UCO Bank,
Delhi High Court Branch on 07.08.2009. The UCO Bank was
directed to keep the said amount in fixed deposit till the claimants
approached it for release. After the appeal had been put in the list of
'regulars', an application was moved on behalf of the claimants which
was allowed by order dated 17.11.2014 permitting Rs.5 lakhs to be
released in favour of the first respondent.
4. When the appeal was taken up, on its turn, initially none would
appear. After the presence of the respondents had been secured, the
matter could not be heard as the claimants' counsel sought
adjournment. Thus, the appeal had to be adjourned on 16.01.2017.
Since no one has appeared on the subsequent date, court notices were
issued. The counsel for the claimants has been served but has failed to
appear today. Given the old pendency of the appeal, there is no reason
to defer the hearing yet again.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant has been heard and the
record perused.
6. The mode of calculation of loss of dependency adopted by the
tribunal is strange. On the basis of monthly salary proved by the
claimants at Rs. 9640/-, it assumed that it would increase to Rs.
32,000/- per month by 2,031 when the deceased would have retired
from service. The evidence also showed that the first respondent
(widow) is in receipt of family pension of Rs.3,000/- per month. The
tribunal did give allowance for this but assumed that it would have
increased to Rs.9,000/- in the corresponding period. There is no
rationale for either of two calculations. The tribunal has also deducted
certain other benefits accruing to the widow, they being in the nature
of General Provident Fund, Group Insurance and gratuity. Such
service benefits could not have been discounted. No deduction was
made on account of personal and living expenses. The multiplier of 17
was adopted though the deceased was almost 35 years old.
7. In above facts and circumstances, the calculations are not in
sync with dispensation in Sarla Verma (Smt.) & Ors. v. Delhi
Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121.
8. For re-computing the compensation the monthly salary of Rs.
9640/- has to be reduced by the family pension of Rs.3,000/- per
month. Given the age of the deceased, and the nature of employment,
the element of future prospects of increase at 50% will have to be
factored in. Similarly, given the number of dependents, personal
expenses to the extent of 1/5th would need to be discounted. Further,
the multiplier of 16 would apply.
9. Thus, the total dependency loss comes to (9640-3,000 x
150÷100 x 4÷5 x 12 x 16) Rs. 15,29,856/- rounded off to Rs.
15,30,000/-.
10. The tribunal awarded non-pecuniary damages on account of
loss of love and affection at Rs. 60,000/- besides Rs.10,000 towards
funeral expenses. Following the view taken in Rajesh & Ors. v.
Rajbir Singh & Ors., (2013) 9 SCC 54 and Shashikala V.
Gangalakshmamma (2015) 9 SCC 150, compensation in the sum of
Rs.1 lakh each on account of loss of love & affection and loss of
consortium and Rs. 25,000/- each towards loss of estate and funeral
expense are added.
11. Thus, the total compensation payable in the case is computed as
(15,30,000 + 1,00,000 + 1,00,000+ 25,000 + 25,000) Rs.17,80,000/-.
12. It is noted that the tribunal awarded interest @ 7.5% only.
Following the consistent view taken by this Court [see judgment dated
22.02.2016 in MAC.APP. 165/2011 Oriental Insurance Co Ltd v.
Sangeeta Devi & Ors.], the rate of interest is increased to 9% per
annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization.
13. The apportionment of the modified award shall be in the ratio
indicated in the order dated 07.07.2009. The registry shall calculate
the amounts payable to the respective claimants in terms of the
modified award accordingly. Pursuant to the directions in the said
order dated 07.07.2009, substantial portion of the award would be
lying in fixed deposit receipts. The registry shall ensure that only such
amount is released to the claimants as is now apportioned to them
under the modified award and excess is refunded to the insurance
company. In the event of there being any deficiency, the Joint
Registrar (Judicial) shall issue necessary directions.
14. Statutory amount shall be refunded.
15. The appeal is disposed of in above terms.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
JULY 11, 2017
nk
