Delhi High Court
The Oriental Insurance Co Ltd vs Rita @ Ritu Mehta & Ors on 9 May, 2017
$~11
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 09th May, 2017
+ MAC.APP. 605/2016 & CM No.12552-54/2017
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Pankaj Seth and Mr.
Shoumik Mazumdar, Advs.
versus
RITA @ RITU MEHTA & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Ghanshyam Thakur,
amicus curiae.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
CM No.12554/2017
Issue notice. Learned counsel for the appellant accepts notice.
The delay in filing the cross-objections is condoned and the cross-
objections are taken up for hearing with appeal itself.
MAC.APP. 605/2016, CM No.12552/2017 & CM No.12553/2017
1. The petitioner has challenged the award of the Claims Tribunal
whereby compensation of Rs.10,87,596/- has been awarded to
respondent No.1.
2. On 1st January, 2006, Naresh Kumar Mehta was driving Santro
Car bearing No. DL-3C-AO-0505 and he hit from behind a slow
moving water tanker which was watering the plants on the road. The
Claims Tribunal held the driver of the tanker to be rash and negligent.
3. The deceased aged 59 years at the time of accident, was the
Director of a company. It was claimed that the deceased was earning
Rs.80,000/- per month. Copy of the Income Tax returns for the year
2005-06 were placed on record according to which the income of the
deceased for the year 2005-06 was Rs.1,91,690/-. The Claims Tribunal
took the monthly income of the deceased according to the Income Tax
Returns as Rs.15,974/-, deducted 50% towards personal expenses and
applied the multiplier of 9 to compute the loss of dependency as
Rs.8,62,596/-. The Claims Tribunal awarded Rs.1,00,000/- towards
loss of consortium, Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of estate and
Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses. The total compensation
awarded by the Claims Tribunal is Rs.10,87,596/-.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant urged at the time of hearing
that the deceased was contributory negligent and, therefore, the
compensation is liable to be reduced on account of contributory
negligence.
5. Mr. Ghanshyam Thakur, learned amicus curiae submits that the
Claims Tribunal has deducted 1/2 towards personal expenses whereas
appropriate deduction in respect of married persons is 1/3 rd. It is
further submitted that no compensation has been awarded towards loss
of love and affection.
6. This Court is of the view that the deceased was contributory
negligent as he hit the slow moving water tanker from behind. The
contributory negligence is held to be of 26.27%. The Claims Tribunal
has deducted 50% towards personal expenses whereas appropriate
deduction in case of married persons is 1/3. The personal expenses of
the deceased are therefore, reduced from 1/2 to 1/3. The Claims
Tribunal has not awarded compensation towards loss of love and
affection. Rs.1,00,000/- is awarded towards loss of love and affection.
7. Taking the income of the deceased as 15,974/- deducting 1/3
towards his personal expenses and applying the multiplier of 9, the
loss of dependency is computed at Rs.11,50,128/-. Adding Rs.
1,00,000/- towards loss of love and affection, Rs.1,00,000/- towards
loss of consortium, Rs. 1,00,000/- towards loss of estate and
Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses, the total compensation is
computed as Rs.14,75,128/-. Rs.3,87,532/- is deducted towards the
contributory negligence of the deceased. The appellant is liable to pay
compensation of Rs.10,87,596/-.
8. The appeal as well as cross-objections are allowed. However,
the award amount of Rs.10,87,596/- is upheld for the reasons given
above. The application is disposed of.
9. The appellant has deposited the entire award amount with
Union Bank of India out of which Rs.14,00,000/- has been kept in 14
FDRs in terms of the order dated 05th August, 2016. Respondent No.1
is seeking pre-mature discharge of the FDRs for the medical expenses
as well as the expenses for her disabled grand-son.
10. In the facts and circumstances of this case, Union Bank of India,
Dwarka Branch is directed to re-schedule the 14 FDRs mentioned in
the order dated 5th August, 2016 by releasing Rs.4,00,000/- to
respondent No.1. The balance amount of Rs.10,00,000/- be kept in 50
FDRs of Rs.20,000/- each with cumulative interest in the name of
respondent No.1 for the period 1 month to 50 months respectively.
11. The maturity amount of the FDRs shall be credited in the
savings bank account of respondent No.1 near the place of her
residence. Respondent No.1 shall furnish the particulars of her savings
bank account near the place of her residence to Union Bank of India,
Dwarka Branch.
12. All the original FDRs shall be retained by Union Bank of India,
Dwarka Branch. However, the statement containing FDR number,
FDR amount, date of maturity and the maturity amount be furnished
to respondents No.1.
13. No loan or advance or pre-mature discharge shall be permitted
without the permission of this Court.
14. Union Bank of India, Dwarka Branch shall ensure that the
savings bank account of respondent No.1 is an individual account and
not joint account.
15. This Court appreciates the assistance rendered by Mr.
Ghanshyam Thakur, learned amicus curiae in this matter.
16. Copy of this judgement be given dasti to counsels for the parties
under signature of Court Master.
MAY 09, 2017 J.R. MIDHA, J.
ak
