Delhi High Court
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Chhotey Lal & Ors. on 26 July, 2017
$~18 & 19
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 26th July, 2017
+ MAC APPEAL No.371/2009
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Pankaj Seth, Adv.
versus
CHHOTEY LAL & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Amit Kumar Pandey, Adv.
for R-1.
+ MAC APPEAL No.142/2017
CHHOTEY LAL & ORS. ..... Appellants
Through: Mr. Amit Kumar Pandey, Adv.
versus
NEW INDIA ASURANCE CO. LTD. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Pankaj Seth, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. Vijay Kumar Gautam, 23 year old, a bachelor, died due to
injuries suffered in a motor vehicular accident that took place on
26.06.2006 on account of negligent driving of bus bearing registration
no. DL 1PB 4600, admittedly insured against third party risk with
New India Assurance Company Ltd. (appellant in MAC appeal No.
371/2009). His parents (appellants in MAC Appeal No. 142/2017)
instituted accident claim case (suit no. 292/2006). The tribunal held
inquiry, and by judgment dated 11.05.2009, found a case made out for
award of compensation on principle of fault liability and awarded
compensation in the sum of Rs. 3,85,000/- with interest @ 9 per cent
per annum, this inclusive of Rs. 5,000/- towards funeral charges and
Rs. 25,000/- for loss of love & affection and balance on account of
loss of dependency, the last element having been computed on the
basis of minimum wages of unskilled labour (Rs.3,280/-) from which
50% was deducted towards personal & living expenses, the multiplier
of 18 having been applied.
2. The insurer, by its appeal (MAC appeal no. 371/2009),
questions the award pressing it only on the ground that the multiplier
should have been adopted according to the age of the parents rather
than according to the age of the deceased. This contention is fairly
conceded by the learned counsel for the claimants (appellants in MAC
Appeal No. 142/2017), with reference to decisions of Supreme Court
in Kerala State Road Transport Corporation V. Susamma Thomas
(1994) 2 SCC 176 and U.P.S.R.T.C. vs Trilok Chandra (1996) 4 SCC
362 and of this Court in MAC Appeal No. 431/2016 titled as National
Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Mohammed Siddique & Ors. decided on
18.07.2017. The claimants, however, point out and press their appeal
on the contention that the non-pecuniary damages awarded are
inadequate.
3. As per the ration card (Ex.PW-1/1) (page 115 of the tribunal's
record), the mother (Prabhawati) was born on 12.03.1960. In this
view, on the date of the accident she was 46 years old. Therefore, the
multiplier of 13 would apply and loss of dependency is re-computed
as (3280 ÷ 2 x 12 x 13) Rs. 2,55,840/- rounded off to Rs. 2,56,000/-
4. 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 on account of loss
of love & affection and Rs.25,000/- each towards loss of estate and
funeral expense are added. Thus, the total compensation comes to Rs.
(2,56,000 + 1,00,000 +25,000 + 25,000) Rs. 4,06, 000/-.
5. The award is modified accordingly. It shall carry interest as
levied by the tribunal. The entire enhanced portion of the award shall
go to the second claimant, mother (Prabhawati).
6. The insurance company had deposited the entire awarded
amount in terms of the order dated 04.08.2009 which was released to
the claimants by order dated 13.10.2009. The insurance company
shall now satisfy the enhanced award by requisite deposit with the
tribunal within 30 days, making it available to be released.
7. The statutory deposit made by the insurance company shall be
refunded.
8. Both appeals are disposed of in above terms.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
JULY26, 2017
nk
