Delhi High Court
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Shanno & Ors. on 17 July, 2017
$~16 & 17
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 17th July, 2017
+ MAC APPEAL No.79/2017
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. J.P. N. Shahi, Adv.
versus
SHANNO & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Ashok Kumar Jha, Adv. for
R-1 to 5.
+ MAC APPEAL No.308/2017
SHANNO & ORS. ..... Appellants
Through: Mr. Ashok Kumar Jha, Adv.
versus
MOHD. RIZWAN & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. J.P.N. Shahi, Adv. for R-3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. Shamshad Ali, aged 38 years, died in a motor vehicular accident
that occurred on 02.01.2009, involving vehicle bearing registration no.
HR 38C 7768. On the basis of finding that the accident had occurred
due to negligent driving of the said vehicle, its insurer Oriental
Insurance Company Ltd. (appellant in MAC Appeal No. 79/2017) has
been called upon to pay compensation which was calculated in the
total sum of Rs. 11,10,740/- with interest in favour of the first to fifth
respondents (claimants) in the said appeal, they having come up with
their independent appeal (MAC Appeal No. 308/2017) contending that
the income of the deceased was wrongly computed in the proceedings
before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal on their claim petition
[MACT case no.449402/16 (old no. 103/15].
2. Both sides are aggrieved with the calculation of compensation.
The contention of the insurer is that future prospects of increase to the
extent of 50% could not have been added since income was computed
on minimum wages. The contention of the claimants, on the other
hand, is that the deceased was in private service with M/s Shri Durga
Enterprises at higher wages which plea was wrongly rejected.
3. During the course of hearing, the counsel for the claimants
fairly conceded that formal evidence of employment with M/s Shri
Durga Enterprises was not adduced. He submitted that the claimants
may be granted another opportunity to prove the said employment by
cogent evidence. The counsel for the insurer submitted that he had
nothing to say on this request.
4. In above fact-situation, impugned judgment is set aside to the
extent it determined the amount of compensation. The insurer and the
claimants are relegated to further inquiry into this aspect before the
tribunal. During such further inquiry, the claimants will be granted
another opportunity to prove the said private employment and income
accruing therefrom. Needless to add, it shall be their responsibility to
produce the necessary witnesses, if so required with the assistance of
the tribunal. The insurance company will be entitled to lead evidence
in rebuttal. The tribunal shall take a fresh decision on the issue of
compensation after affording such opportunity.
5. In terms of order dated 20.01.2017 (in MAC Appeal No.
79/2017), the insurance company had been directed to deposit the
entire awarded amount with the tribunal and, by order 27.03.2017,
50% was allowed to be released to the claimants. The said amount
already paid will be suitably adjusted from the compensation to be
awarded by the fresh judgment of the tribunal.
6. The balance lying with the tribunal shall presently be refunded
to the insurance company.
7. It is made clear that this judgment does not disturb the recovery
rights which have been granted to the insurance company.
8. Statutory amount shall also be refunded.
9. Both appeals are disposed of in above terms.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
JULY 17, 2017
nk
