Delhi High Court
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Sushila Rani Katyal And Ors. on 10 March, 2017
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: March 10, 2017
+ MAC. APP.376/2009 & C.Ms.10826-27/2009
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. L.K. Tyagi, Advocate
versus
SUSHILA RANI KATYAL & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Amit Sharma, Advocate for
respondents No.1 & 2
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
% (ORAL)
Appellant is the Insurer of bus No. DL-1PB-3911, which was
involved in a road accident on 24th August, 2006. Vide impugned Award
of 15th April, 2009, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred
to as Tribunal) has granted compensation of `6,01,440/- with interest
@7.5% per annum to respondents-claimants on account of death of
Ms.Mayanka Katyal @ Mansi, who was fatally injured in this accident
and had eventually died.
Vide impugned Award, learned Tribunal has assessed the 'loss of
dependency' at `5,41,440/- by applying the multiplier of 16 and has
granted compensation of `50,000/- under the head of 'loss of love and
affection' and `10,000/- as 'funeral expenses'. The facts of this case are
already noted in impugned Award and so, need no reproduction. Suffice
to note that deceased was a student aged 18 years and while relying upon
the evidence of Claimants and eye-witness, impugned Award has been
rendered.
While entertaining this appeal, appellant was directed to deposit a
sum of `5 lacs with the Registrar General of this Court and it was so
done. Vide order of 23rd November, 2009, a direction was issued to
release a sum of `1 lac to respondents-Claimants and remaining `4 lacs
was directed to be kept in Fixed Deposit Receipts with UCO Bank, Delhi
High Court Branch, New Delhi. It is evident from the order of 23rd
November, 2009 that service in this appeal is complete.
The challenge to impugned Award by learned counsel for
appellant-Insurer is on the ground that multiplier of 16 has been
erroneously adopted and the applicable multiplier as per Supreme Court's
decision in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and Others v. Delhi Transport
Corporation and Another (2009) 6 SCC 121 is of 15 as deceased was an
unmarried girl aged 18 years.
It is next submitted by appellant's counsel that learned Tribunal
has erred in granting compensation under the head of 'future prospects'
by applying the factor of 1.5 and has arrived at a figure of `5,640/- which
ought not to be granted as the notional income of deceased has been taken
on minimum wages. Thus, it is submitted that the quantum of
compensation granted needs to be suitably reduced.
On the contrary, learned counsel for respondents-Claimants
supports impugned Award and submits that deceased was a student, who
was having bright future and so, 'future prospects' have been rightly
taken into consideration and thus, impugned Award deserves to be
maintained. Nothing else is urged on behalf of either side.
Upon hearing and on perusal of impugned Award, evidence on
record and the decision cited, I find that applicable multiplier as per
Supreme Court's decision in Sarla Verma (supra) is of 15 and learned
Tribunal has erred in applying the multiplier of 16. In view of Three
Judge Bench decision of Supreme Court in Reshma Kumari & Ors. v.
Madan Mohan & Anr. (2013) 9 SCC 65, addition towards 'future
prospects' is to be made where the deceased is in permanent kind of
employment. Since deceased was a student of B.Com. (Pass) in School of
Open Learning, therefore, any addition made towards 'future prospects'
is unjustified. Supreme Court in a recent pronouncement in Sandeep
Khanuja V. Atul Dande 2017 SCC Online SC 88 has reiterated that
application of multiplier takes care of future prospects, advancement in
life and cost of living etc..
While taking the notional income of deceased to be `3,760/- as per
applicable minimum wages then and by adopting the multiplier of 15 and
after deducting 50% towards 'personal expenses', the 'loss of
dependency' is reassessed as `3,760/- X 12 X 50% X 15 = `3,38,400/-.
Thus, the quantum of compensation granted under the head of 'loss of
dependency' is reduced from `5,41,440/- to `3,38,400/-.
This Court finds that the compensation granted by learned Tribunal
under the non-pecuniary heads is on lower side. Accordingly,
compensation granted under the head of 'loss of love and affection' is
enhanced from `50,000/- to `1 lac and 'funeral expenses' are increased
from `10,000/- to `25,000/-. In light of Supreme Court's decision in
Sandhya Rani Debbarma & Ors. v. The National Insurance Company
Ltd. & Anr., 2016 SCC Online SC 945, compensation of `1lac is granted
to respondents-Claimants under the head of 'loss of estate'.
The reassessed compensation payable to respondents-Claimants is
as under: -
Loss of dependency `3,38,400/-
Loss of love and affection `1,00,000/-
Loss of estate `1,00,000/-
Funeral expenses `25,000/-
Total compensation `5,63,400/-
In the light of aforesaid, this appeal succeeds to the extent of
reducing the quantum of compensation from `6,01,440/- to `5,63,400/-.
In the light of a recent decision of Supreme Court in Shivakumar
M. v. The Managing Director, BMTC, 2017 SCC Online SC 148, the
reassessed compensation shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the
date of filing of the claim petition till the date of deposit of the enhanced
amount. Respondent-Insurer is granted four weeks time to deposit the
balance amount and differential interest on the reassessed compensation
with learned Tribunal, who shall ensure that it is directly transmitted into
the bank account of respondents-Claimants, upon their furnishing bank
account details.
Statutory deposit, if any, made by appellant-Insurer be refunded as
per Rules.
This appeal and the applications are disposed of while modifying
the impugned Award in aforesaid terms.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
MARCH 10, 2017
s
