Delhi High Court
Cholamandalam Ms. General Ins. ... vs Rakesh & Ors. on 19 July, 2017
$~9
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 19th July, 2017
+ MAC APPEAL 434/2016 & CM NO. 19736/2016
CHOLAMANDALAM MS. GENERAL INS. CO. LTD.
... Appellant
Through: Mr. Pankaj Gupta, Adv. for
Ms. Suman Bagga, Adv.
versus
RAKESH & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Navneet Goyal, Adv. for R-
1 to 4.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. Pinky, a house wife, then aged 36 years, died as a result of
injuries suffered in motor vehicular accident that occurred on
02.07.2015, involving rash driving of vehicle bearing registration no.
DL 1M 5890 which was admittedly insured against third party risk
with the appellant insurance company. Her husband and other
members of family dependent on her, they being first to fourth
respondents (collectively, the claimants) instituted accident claim case
(suit no. 244/2015) on 03.08.2015. The tribunal accepting the case of
cause of action arising on the principle of fault liability, by judgment
dated 25.02.2016, awarded compensation in the total sum of Rs.
24,77,200/- in favour of the claimants. It includes loss of dependency
calculated as Rs. 22,52,200/- on the notional income of Rs. 12,512/-, it
being the minimum wages for non-matriculates with the factor of
future prospects to the extent of 25% added in terms of decision of this
Court in Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Manmeet
Singh 2012 ACJ 721.
2. The insurance company which has been called upon to satisfy
the award is in appeal submitting that the deduction on account of
personal & living expenses to the extent of 1/4 th should have been
made in terms of decision of Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (Smt.) &
Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121.
3. Per contra, the counsel for the claimants, submitted that no
such deduction has been indicated in the case of Royal Sundaram
Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Manmeet Singh (supra). He also
pointed out that the 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/- are inadequate.
4. The issue on deduction on account of personal & living
expenses was settled by this court by a decision in Reliance General
Insurance Co Ltd vs. Murgan & Ors. in MAC Appeal No. 1177/2014
decided on 25.02.2016. Upon deduction to the extent of 1/4 th towards
personal and living expenses being made (the number of dependents
being four), the loss of dependency is re-computed as (12512 x 3÷ 4 x
12 x 15) Rs. 16,89,120/- rounded off to Rs. 16,90,000/-.
5. Indeed, the non-pecuniary damages awarded by the tribunal are
on the lower side. Having regard to the date of accident and following
the decision in MAC.APP.No.160/2015 Shriram General Insurance
Co Ltd v. Usha decided by this court on 05.05.2016, non-pecuniary
damages in the sum of Rs.1,50,000/- each towards loss of love &
affection and towards loss of consortium and Rs.50,000/- towards
funeral expense are added. Hence, the total compensation payable in
the case comes to (16,90,000 + 1,50,000 + 1,50,000 + 50,000) Rs.
20,40,000/-. The award is modified accordingly. It shall carry interest
as levied by the tribunal.
6. By order dated 24.05.2016, the insurance company had been
directed to deposit the entire awarded amount with the tribunal and out
of such deposit, 50% was allowed to be released to the claimants, the
balance kept in interest bearing fixed deposit account. The tribunal
shall now release the balance in terms of the modified award
refunding the excess to the insurance company.
7. Statutory amount shall be refunded.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
JULY 19, 2017
nk
