Delhi High Court
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. vs Reeta & Ors. on 16 March, 2017
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: March 16, 2017
+ MAC.APP. 334/2015 & C.M.No.6413/2015
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Pradeep Gaur, Advocate
versus
REETA & ORS .....Respondents
Through: Nemo
+ MAC.APP. 336/2015 & C.M.No.6427/2015
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Pradeep Gaur, Advocate
versus
SUBHASH SINGH & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Nemo
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
% ORAL
The above captioned two appeals relate to a road accident, which
took place on 10th October, 2009, in which driver of Dumper and the
helper, who was travelling in that Dumper, had died after collision with
another Dumper. Two separate claim petitions were filed by legal heirs of
driver and helper of Dumper in question, whose Insurer is appellant
herein. Evidence was led by Claimants, but no evidence was led by
respondents herein. On the basis of evidence led, Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as Tribunal) has rendered two separate
Awards of even date i.e. of 2nd February, 2015.
Respondents/Claimants-Reeta and others, in the above-captioned
first appeal have been granted compensation of `21,79,000/- with interest
@ 9% per annum whereas in the above-captioned second appeal,
respondents/Claimants-Subhash Singh & Others have been granted
compensation of `5,71,000/- with same rate of interest. In these two
appeals, as per order of 17th November, 2016, service is complete. But
respondents remain unrepresented. The factual background of this case
already stands noted in impugned Awards and so, needs no reproduction.
Suffice to note that while entertaining these appeals, appellant-Insurer
was directed to deposit the awarded amount and it has been so done.
On the request of learned counsel for appellant-Insurer, both these
appeals have been heard together and are being decided by this common
judgment.
Learned counsel for appellant-Insurer submits that the challenge to
impugned Awards in these appeals is on quantum of compensation
awarded. The breakup of compensation awarded to
respondents/Claimants-Reeta and others is as under:-
1. Loss of dependency: ₹19,44,000/-
₹8,000/- + ₹4,000/-
= ₹12,000/- / 1/4th X 12 X 18
2. Loss of love & affection ₹2,00,000/-
3. Funeral expenses ₹25,000/-
4. Loss of estate ₹10,000/-
Total compensation ₹21,79,000/-
The breakup of compensation awarded to respondents/Claimants-
Subhash Singh & others is as under:-
1. Loss of dependency: ₹3,36,000/-
₹4,000/- / 1/3rd X 12 X 14
2. Loss of love & affection ₹2,00,000/-
3. Funeral expenses ₹25,000/-
4. Loss of estate ₹10,000/-
Total compensation ₹5,71,000/-
Learned counsel for appellant-Insurer submits that deceased-Rahul
@ Yashveer, who was a bachelor aged 20 years at the time of accident,
had died in this accident and in the absence of any proof of income,
addition of 50% towards 'future prospects' granted by learned Tribunal is
unjustified. It is next submitted by appellant's counsel that learned
Tribunal has erred in deducting 1/3rd towards 'personal expenses'
whereas in a case of bachelor, 50% is to be deducted. So, it is submitted
that compensation granted to legal heirs of deceased-Rahul ought to be
suitably reduced.
In the case of deceased-Devesh Kumar, aged 26 years, a driver by
profession, it is submitted by learned counsel for appellant-Insurer that
addition of 50% towards 'future prospects' is unjustified as above-said
deceased was not in stable employment and so, the 'loss of dependency'
needs to be re-assessed and the compensation granted deserves to be
suitably reduced. Nothing else is urged on behalf of appellant-Insurer.
Upon hearing and on perusal of impugned Awards and the
evidence on record, I find that in above captioned second appeal,
although learned Tribunal has held that addition of 50% towards 'future
prospects' is to be made, but while calculating 'loss of dependency', no
addition towards 'future prospects' has been made and so, the quantum of
compensation granted calls for no reduction. I also find that learned
Tribunal has mentioned in impugned Award that deduction of 1/3 rd
towards 'personal expenses' of deceased-Rahul is to be made, but the
calculation made in impugned Award reveals that actually 50% has been
deducted towards 'personal expenses' of deceased and so, the 'loss of
dependency' has been rightly assessed at `3,36,000/. Even the
compensation granted under the non-pecuniary heads appears to be just
and reasonable and call for no interference by this Court.
Whereas in the above captioned first appeal, addition of 50%
towards 'future prospects' has been made by learned Tribunal to assess
'loss of dependency'. Appellant's plea to calculate the deceased-Devesh's
income on minimum wages is not found to be just and reasonable and is
hence declined as judicial notice can be taken of the fact that in the year
2009, when this accident took place, the salary of Truck drivers used to
be `10,000/- to `12,000/- per month and so, while taking the income of
deceased-Devesh to be `12,000/- per month, I find that the 'loss of
dependency' has been rightly worked out and so, no case for reduction of
quantum of compensation is made out.
In view of aforesaid, this Court is of the considered opinion that the
quantum of compensation granted to respondents-claimants is fair and
just and no case for its reduction is made out. Accordingly, both the
appeals are dismissed.
Statutory deposit, if any, be refunded to appellant-Insurer as per
Rules. The compensation deposited by appellant be released to
respondents-Claimants in the manner indicated in impugned Awards.
The above-captioned two appeals and the pending applications are
accordingly disposed of.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
MARCH 16, 2017
s
