Delhi High Court
Yuvraj & Ors. vs Ramu Verma @ Rahul & Anr. on 2 November, 2017
$~R-392
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 2nd November, 2017
+ MAC APPEAL 836/2011
YUVRAJ & ORS. ..... Appellants
Through: Mr. Navneet Goyal, Advocate
versus
RAMU VERMA @ RAHUL & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Priyadarsi Acharya for Mr.
Sameer Nandwani, Advocate
for R-2
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. Dharam Raj Pandey, then aged 56 years, a widower, died in a
motor vehicular accident that occurred on 04.02.2008 due to negligent
driving of a motorcycle bearing registration no.DL-4S-BK-2759 (the
motor cycle) by Ramu Verma @ Rahul (first respondent), since
deceased and substituted by his father. The three sons and one
married daughter of Dharam Raj Pandey, they now being the
appellants (collectively, the claimants), instituted accident claim case
(MACT 1019/10/2008) on 27.03.2008 seeking compensation under
Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 impleading Bajaj Allianz
General Insurance Company Ltd. (insurer) as the second respondent, it
also being a respondent in the appeal.
2. By judgment dated 02.08.2011, on the basis of the evidence led,
the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Tribunal) accepted the case for
compensation holding the said motorcyclist responsible for the fatal
accident. The Tribunal awarded compensation in the total sum of
Rs.2,38,382/- burdening the first respondent with the liability to pay
with interest, the said amount inclusive of Rs.2,200/- towards medical
expenses, Rs.1,96,182/- towards loss of dependency, Rs.10,000/- each
towards funeral charges and loss to estate and Rs.20,000/- on account
of loss of love and affection.
3. The insurer (second respondent) has raised the defence that the
driver of the motor cycle was not holding a valid or effective driving
licence. Evidence to this effect was adduced with virtually no contest
from the motorcyclist (first respondent). The tribunal accepted that
even if the copy of the driving licence which had been submitted was
presumed to be genuine, it would not be a licence authorizing the first
respondent to drive the motorcycle, a vehicle which falls in the
category distinct from one of light motor vehicle under the law and
rules. On this ground, the insurance company was exonerated.
4. By the appeal at hand, the claimants seek enhancement on the
ground that the awards under the pecuniary and non-pecuniary heads
of damages granted by the tribunal are deficient. It has been
submitted that while three of the children were found to be major and
settled, thus not dependent, one of the son was held to be a minor and,
therefore, deduction on account of personal and living expenses
should have been made to the extent of one-third rather than one-half.
This plea cannot be accepted since as per the ruling in Sarla Verma &
Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121,
deduction of one-third is made on this account in cases where the
claimants are two or three in number.
5. The claimants, however, also rely on the judgment dated
31.10.2017 of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court rendered
in SLP (C) 25590/2014, National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay
Sethi and Ors. to plead that the element of future prospects of increase
in income should have been added. It is noted that the tribunal had
taken the income of the deceased as Rs.3,633/- on the basis of
minimum wages. Since the deceased was a self-employed person,
having regard to his age (56 years), the element of future prospects to
the extent of 10% has to be added.
6. Thus, the loss of dependency is re-computed as [Rs.3,633/- x
110/100 / 2 x 12 x 9] Rs.2,15,800/- (Rupees Two Lakh, Fifteen
thousand and eight hundred only).
7. Following the view taken in MACA 798/2011, Bajaj Allianz
General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pooja and Ors., decided earlier
today, the loss of estate and funeral charges are awarded in the sums
of Rs.15,000/- each. The total compensation thus is re-computed as
[Rs.2200/- + Rs.2,15,800/- + Rs.15,000/- + Rs.15,000/-] Rs.2,48,000/-
(Rupees Two lakh and forty eight thousand only). The award is
modified accordingly. It shall carry interest as levied by the tribunal.
8. It is noted that the tribunal did not make any apportionment of
the award. It is directed that the amount shall be paid in equal
proportion to all the four claimants.
9. The submission of the claimants in appeal against exoneration
of the insurance company is also found to be correct. Even if there
was a breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, there
is no reason why the insurer must not discharge its statutory
responsibility towards the third parties whose interest it had
undertaken to care for. In this view, it is directed that the insurance
company shall pay the award as modified above by requisite deposit
with the tribunal within 30 days, where-after it shall have the liberty to
recover the said amount from the first respondent or his estate.
10. The appeal is disposed of in above terms.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
NOVEMBER 02, 2017
yg
