Delhi High Court
Regional Manager, National ... vs Anita Devi & Ors on 31 July, 2017
$~6
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 31st July, 2017
+ MAC.APP. 426/2015 and CM No.13999/2017
REGIONAL MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE
CO LTD ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Amit Gaur for Mr. Pradeep
Gaur, Advocate
versus
ANITA DEVI & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. S.K. Pandey, Adv. for R-1 to 6
with R-1 & 5 in person
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. Arun Kumar Upadhyay, was employed as a constable with
Delhi Police and at a time when he was on official duty on
05.05.2013, he suffered injuries in a motor vehicular accident that
occurred due to negligent driving of a motor vehicle described as rural
transport vehicle bus bearing registration no.DL-1VC-0128 (RTV) and
died in the consequence. His wife and other members of the family
dependent on him, they being first to sixth respondents, instituted
accident claim (MACA 142/13) seeking compensation.
2. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Tribunal), after inquiry,
by judgment dated 27.03.2015, upheld the case for compensation on
the principle of fault liability and awarded compensation in the sum of
Rs.47,05,330/- awarding it with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. directing
the insurer to pay.
3. The insurance company challenges the judgment of the tribunal
and presses the appeal on the sole ground that the ex-gratia amount of
Rs.10 Lakhs which had been received by the widow should have been
deducted from the compensation, relying in this context on the
decision of the Supreme Court in Reliance General Insurance
Company Vs. Shashi Sharma and Ors., (2016) 9 SCC 627.
4. The appeal was admitted and directed to be shown in the
category of regular matters as per order dated 11.11.2016. It has come
to be listed in the context of application moved by first and fourth
respondents for releasing of certain amounts which had been put in
fixed deposit receipts on account of pressing needs. On being asked,
the learned counsel on both sides submitted that they are ready to
argue on the main appeal, which has consequently been taken up for
final hearing and disposal.
5. The submission of both sides having been heard and the record
perused. This court finds that the decision in Shashi Sharma (supra)
would not apply to the claim case of the respondents. Noticeably, in
Shashi Sharma (supra), the question considered was as to whether ex
gratia payment made by the Government of Haryana under Rules
notified in 2006 to grant on compassionate grounds ex gratia financial
assistance to members of the family of a deceased Government
employee was to be deducted from compensation awardable in a case
brought before the Tribunal under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles
Act. The Supreme Court held that the amount receivable by the
dependants / claimants "towards" the head of "pay and allowances"
in the form of ex gratia financial assistance could not be paid second
time to the claimants. The said decision was based on a finding that
the amount payable under the 2006 Rules of the Government of
Haryana were towards pay and allowances. In the present case, the
respondents had examined R3W1 SI Ashok Tyagi, who proved the
details of payment made to the legal heirs by Delhi Police, such details
being Ex. R3W1/A. The said evidence simply shows an amount of
Rs.10 Lakh was paid to the next of kin. There is nothing in the
evidence from which it could be assumed that such ex gratia payment
was towards "pay and allowances".
6. In the above facts and circumstances, the decision of the
Supreme Court in Helen C. Rebello and Ors., Vs. Maharashtra State
Road Transport Corporation and Anr., 1999 (1) SCC 90 would apply.
7. Thus, the appeal is devoid of substance and is dismissed.
8. By order dated 19.05.2015, the insurance company had been
directed to deposit a sum of Rs.37,05,330/- with proportionate interest
and out of the said deposit, some portion was allowed to be released to
the first and fourth respondents with further liberty given to them to
draw monthly interest, the balance having been kept in fixed deposit
account. The balance amount lying in deposits shall now be released
in terms of the impugned judgment. The insurance company must
satisfy the award fully by requisite deposit of the balance with the
Tribunal within thirty days.
9. For any premature release of the amount kept in fixed deposit
receipts, the claimants have the liberty to approach the Tribunal with
requisite applications.
10. The statutory amount shall be refunded after proof is adduced of
award having been satisfied.
11. The appeal and the pending application are disposed of in above
terms.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
JULY 31, 2017
yg
