Delhi High Court
Rashmi Sharma & Ors. vs Vishwa Nath & Ors. on 12 July, 2017
$~R-61 & 62
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 12th July, 2017
+ MAC APPEAL No. 103/2009
RASHMI SHARMA & ORS. ..... Appellants
Through: Mr. Anshuman Bal, Adv.
versus
VISHWA NATH & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. J.P.N. Shahi, Adv. for R-1.
+ MAC APPEAL No. 291/2009
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. J.P.N. Shahi, Adv.
versus
RASHMI SHARMA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Anshuman Bal, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. Mahinder Rai Sharma, born on 01.04.1951, working as
Manager with a Wine and Beer Shop at Pritampura, died as a result of
injuries in a motor vehicular accident, that occurred on 26.10.2006,
statedly involving rash driving of car bearing registration no. DL 8CB
5805, which was concededly insured against third party risk with New
India Assurance Company Ltd. (appellant in MAC Appeal
No.291/2009). His widow, three children and mother, they being
appellants in MAC Appeal No. 103/2009 (collectively the claimants)
brought an accident claim case (petition no. 1327/2006) before the
motor accident claims tribunal on 11.12.2006, seeking compensation,
impleading the driver, owner and insurer of the car as respondents.
After inquiry, by judgment dated 26.11.2008, the tribunal upheld the
case of the claimants about death having occurred due to negligent
driving of the car and awarded compensation computing it at Rs.
12,52,000/- though directing its disbursement with interest @ 8% per
annum in favour of the claimants by monthly instalments through
cheques spread over the future period.
2. Both the claimants and the insurer, having felt dis-satisfied,
have come up to this Court with their respective appeals, each
questioning only the quantum of compensation and the mode of its
disbursal. On perusal, this court accepts the grievances of both sides.
3. It is clear that the tribunal has misread the evidence in rejecting
the testimony of PW-2 about the then gainful employment of the
deceased at a salary of Rs. 18,000/- per month and instead going by
the income declared for the assessment year 2002-2003. The
calculation also went haywire because a wrong multiplier was applied
and deductions on account of personal and living expenses did not
take into account the number of dependents. The award of non-
pecuniary damages in the sum of Rs. 80,000/- towards love and
affection and at Rs. 20,000/- only for funeral expenses are also
inadequate.
4. For the foregoing reasons, the compensation has to be worked
out afresh.
5. In the testimony of PW-2 Virender Kaushik, proprietor of M/s
Virender Kaushik Wine and Beer Shop cause in the document
(Ex.PW-2/1), he had mentioned the date of appointment as
01.04.2007. But, it indicated the salary having been paid in cash from
07.05.2006 onwards at the rate of Rs.18,000/-. He clarified while
deposing that the date of appointment was 01.04.2006. In these
circumstances, the rejection of such evidence was uncalled for.
6. The age at which the death occurred was more than 55 years,
seven months. In these circumstances, the multiplier of 9 would
apply. Since the number of dependents were five, 1/4 th had to be
deducted towards personal and living expenses. In these
circumstances, the loss of dependency is calculated at (18000 x 3 ÷4 x
12 x 9) Rs. 14,58,000/-.
7. It also appears from the evidence that after the accident, the
victim was taken to Saroj Hospital & Heart Institute, Sector-14,
Madhuban Chowk, Rohini, Delhi, where he died during treatment. It
is pointed out that the widow (PW-1) had proved by her evidence, on
the strength of her affidavit (Ex.PW-1/1), she having incurred medical
expenses for the treatment of her husband, the treatment records and
medical bills having been proved as Ex.P-4 to P-15. The documents
proved indicate medical expenditure in the sum of Rs. 23,414/- which
is rounded off to Rs. 24,000/-. This amount also will have to be added
to the compensation.
8. Following the view taken in Rajesh & Ors. v. Rajbir Singh &
Ors., (2013) 9 SCC 54 and Shashikala V. Gangalakshmamma (2015)
9 SCC 150, non-pecuniary damages 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. Thus, the total compensation payable in the case is computed
as (14,58,000 +1,00,000 + 1,00,000+ 25,000 + 25,000 + 24,000) Rs.
17,32,000/-. The award is modified accordingly.
9. 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.
10. It is not proper to disburse the compensation by instalments in
the manner ordered by the tribunal. The mother of the deceased has
since died, wherefore the award would be distributed between the
widow (first appellant) and the children (second to fourth
respondents). The amount computed as compensation by the tribunal
has already been paid to the claimants. In these circumstances, the
entire enhanced portion of the award shall be payable only to the
widow (first appellant) Rashmi Sharma. It shall be paid with the
corresponding interest by the insurance company by requisite deposit
with the tribunal within 30 days and be put in a fixed deposit receipt in
an interest bearing account in her name in a nationalized bank initially
for a period of six months.
11. Both appeals stand disposed of in above terms.
12. Statutory amount shall be refunded to the insurance company.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
JULY 12, 2017
nk
