Delhi High Court
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs K.S. Yadav & Ors on 12 July, 2017
$~R-64 & R-65 (common order)
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 12th July, 2017
+ MAC.APP. 123/2009 and CM APPL.2665/2009
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Pankaj Seth, Advocate
versus
K.S. YADAV & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Nemo.
+ MAC.APP. 124/2009
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Pankaj Seth, Advocate
versus
SMT. SUMAN KHANNA & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Nemo.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. In a motor vehicular accident that occurred on 06.09.1999
involving negligent driving of bus bearing registration No.DL-IP-0185
several persons received injuries, they including K.S. Yadav (the first
respondent in MAC APP.123/2009) and Rajesh Khanna, the husband
of Suman Khanna, the first respondent in MAC APPL.124/2009
besides others. K.S.Yadav instituted accident claim case (Suit
No.532/2007) while Suman Khanna joining her children and mother
of the deceased instituted accident claim case (Suit No.305/2007).
Both the said claim petitions, along with one another arising out of the
same accident, in each of which driver and owner of the offending
vehicle were also impleaded as respondents in addition to the insurer,
were clubbed together and resulted in common inquiry which
eventually resulted in a common judgment dated 03.09.2008.
2. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the tribunal) upheld the
contention of accident having occurred due to negligent driving and
awarded compensation in each case fastening the liability on the
insurance company. In the case of claim for injuries of K.S. Yadav,
compensation in the total sum of Rs.4,99,095/- was awarded with
interest. In the case arising out of death of Rajesh Khanna, total
compensation in the sum of Rs.33,60,400/- was awarded with interest.
3. The insurance company has filed these appeals challenging the
awards in favour of K.S. Yadav and the claim in the case of death of
Rajesh Khanna submitting that the same are excessive. It may be
added that on account of its plea of breach of conditions of the
insurance policy, the insurance company has been granted recovery
rights against the owner and driver of the offending vehicle.
4. K.S.Yadav, the evidence shows, was employed in income tax
department. Proof of his said employment and emoluments earned
therefrom was adduced. The tribunal while calculating the
compensation on account of loss of leave (and corresponding salary)
for the period of treatment, decided for some reasons, which cannot be
fathomed, to go by the minimum wages and in calculating the actual
loss, added the factor of future prospects. This is the bone of
contention for the insurance company, its submission being that since
awards were calculated on minimum wages, it is inherent that there
would not have been progressive rise in income. This contention
needs to be noted and rejected for the simple reason the evidence
clearly showed the claimant was in regular government employment,
he being Tax Assistant in Income Tax Department. The appeal in the
case of K.S. Yadav is thus devoid of merit.
5. In the appeal in the case of claim on account of death of Rajesh
Khanna, exception is taken to multiplier of '15' having been applied
and the addition of future prospects to the extent of 50%, it being
pointed out that the deceased was 42 years old at the time of death,
with reference made to the decision in Sarla Verma (Smt.) & Ors. v.
Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121.
6. The contentions of the insurance company technically may be
correct. But upon correct calculations being made, there would be no
substantial difference in the compensation that deserves to be
awarded. This is demonstrated herein below.
7. As per the evidence, the deceased was employed as assistant
administrative officer with Oriental Insurance Company (the appellant
itself). His salary and emoluments were proved by documents
Ex.PW-10/I. Rs.18,261/- may have been the total monthly
emoluments. But the document also shows that he was entitled to
certain other perks which, if quantified, would justify the assumption
that his income was in the region of Rs.19,000/-. Per Sarla Verma
(supra), future prospects to the extent of 30% would have to be
factored in and the multiplier of 14 would apply. The tribunal fell into
error by deducting one-third towards personal and living expenses.
Since there were four dependents, such deduction would be to the
extent of one-fourth only.
8. Thus, the loss of dependency would work out as (19,000/- x
130÷100 x 3÷4 x 12 x 14) Rs.31,12,200/-. The loss of dependency
awarded by the tribunal is in the sum of Rs.33,35,400/-. But then the
award under non-pecuniary damages at Rs.15,000/- composite for loss
to estate and loss of consortium with funeral expenses at Rs.10,000/-
are meager. Upon such awards being suitably modified, in accord with
the dictum in Rajesh & Ors. v. Rajbir Singh & Ors., (2013) 9 SCC 54
and Shashikala V. Gangalakshmamma (2015) 9 SCC 150, the total
compensation awarded by the tribunal is justified.
9. For the foregoing reasons, the appeals are devoid of substance
and are dismissed.
10. By order dated 24.02.2009 passed in MAC APP.123/2009 and
by order dated 31.03.2009 passed in MAC APP.124/2009, partial stay
was granted subject to some amount being released and the balance
being deposited with interest with the tribunal. The amounts lying
with the tribunal shall now be released to the claimants.
11. The statutory amount shall also be returned to the appellant
insurance company.
12. Both appeals with pending application stand disposed of in
above terms.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
JULY 12, 2017
vk
