Delhi High Court
Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co ... vs Kanchan Devi & Ors on 27 July, 2017
$~26
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 27th July, 2017
+ MAC.APP. 501/2016
IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. A.K. Soni, Advocate
versus
KANCHAN DEVI & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Amresh Kumar, Advocates for
respondents No.1 to 5.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. The appellant has challenged the award of the Claims Tribunal
whereby compensation of Rs.22,57,813/- has been awarded to respondents
No.1 to 5.
2. On 24th March, 2013 at about 02:00 P.M., Hasinder Turi was driving
his motorcycle bearing No.DL-10-SE-1790 and was hit by another
motorcycle bearing No.DL-9S-AK-6959 coming from the side of Chunna
Bhatti which resulted in fatal injuries to Hasinder Turi. The deceased was
survived by his widow, two minor children and parents who filed an
application for compensation before the Claims Tribunal claiming that the
deceased was earning Rs.15,000/- per month . However, the Claims
Tribunal took the minimum wages of Rs.8,814/-, added 50% towards future
prospects, deducted 1/4rd towards personal expenses and applied the
multiplier of 17 to compute the loss of dependency as Rs.20,22,813/-. The
Claims Tribunal added Rs.1 lakh towards loss of consortium, Rs.1 lakh
towards loss of care and guidance for children, Rs.10,000/- towards loss of
estate and Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses. The total compensation
awarded is Rs.22,57,813/-.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant urged at the time of the hearing that
the deceased was contributory negligent and, therefore, the compensation
amount is liable to be reduced on that account. It was further contended that
the addition of 50% towards future prospects be set aside.
4. The Claims Tribunal has held respondent No.1 negligent for the
accident on the basis of the proceedings arising out of the FIR No.103/2013
registered by the P.S Kirti Nagar under sections 279/304-A IPC. There is no
infirmity in the finding of negligence of respondent No.1 by the Claims
Tribunal.
5. The Claims Tribunal has taken the minimum wages to compute the
income of the deceased. This Court is of the view that it is not mandatory to
resort to minimum wages in each and every case. Reference in this regard
may be made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Municipal
Corporation of Delhi v. Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy, AIR
2012 SC 100 in which 59 persons died in Uphaar tragedy and the Supreme
Court granted compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- to the victims of above 20
years of age and Rs.7,50,000/- to the victims below 20 years of age on the
basis of multiplier method. The Supreme Court applied the multiplier of 15
and deducted 1/3rd towards the personal expenses. The income of the victims
aged more than 20 years was assumed to be Rs.8,333/- per month and that
of victims aged less than 20 years was assumed to be Rs.6,249/- per month.
The computation of the compensation awarded by the Supreme Court would
be as under :-
For victims aged more than 20 years:-
(Rs.8,333/- less 1/3rd)x 12 x 15 = Rs.10 lakhs.
For victims aged less than 20 years:-
(Rs.6249/- less 1/3rd) x 15 = Rs.7.5 lakhs.
6. It is relevant to note that the Uphaar tragedy took place on 13th June,
1997 and the minimum wages at the relevant time were less than Rs.2600/-
but neither the Division Bench of this Court nor the Supreme Court resorted
to minimum wages to compute the compensation although neither the
income nor the occupation of the victims was proved.
7. Considering that the deceased was a professional driver, the income of
the deceased is assumed to be Rs.13,221/-. Deducting 1/4th and applying the
multiplier of 17, the loss of dependency is computed as Rs.20,22,813/-. The
compensation awarded under the other heads is just, fair and reasonable.
The total compensation of Rs.22,57,813/- is upheld.
8. The appeal is dismissed.
9. The appellant has deposited the entire award amount awarded by the
Claims Tribunal in respect of which disbursement order has been passed on
18th October, 2016 and 20th January, 2017.
10. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that UCO Bank has not
disbursed the amount in terms of the aforesaid orders.
11. Respondents No.1 to 3 are present in Court and they submit that UCO
Bank has not issued the FDRs in terms of order dated 18th October, 2016 and
20th January, 2017 on the ground that the PAN Cards have not been
produced. It is submitted that respondent No.1 has produced her PAN Card
whereas respondents No.2 and 3 being minor children, the PAN card of
respondent No.1 is sufficient for issuance of FDRs. Respondents No.4 and 5
have applied for PAN cards. It is further submitted that the respondents are
unable to sustain themselves without the disbursement of the amount.
12. In the interest of justice and considering that almost more than nine
months have passed after the order dated 18 th October, 2016; UCO Bank,
Delhi High Court Branch is directed to issue the FDRs, in terms of orders
dated 18th October, 2016 and 20th January, 2017, on the basis of documents
already furnished within one week from today.
13. Mr. Asheesh Jain, learned Senior Standing Counsel for Income Tax
Department shall assist this Court in this matter.
14. List for reporting compliance on 17th August, 2017.
15. The statutory amount be refunded back to the appellant.
16. Copy of this judgment as well as the orders dated 18 th October, 2016
and 20th January, 2017 be given dasti to Mr. Asheesh Jain under signatures
of the Court Master.
17. Copy of this judgment be given dasti to counsels for the parties under
signatures of the Court Master.
18. Copy of this judgment be sent to UCO Bank, Delhi High Court
Branch for compliance.
JULY 27, 2017 J.R. MIDHA, J.
rsk
