Delhi High Court
The Oriental Insurance Company ... vs Geeta Devi & Ors. on 15 November, 2017
$~R-485
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 15th November, 2017
+ MAC APPEAL 382/2012
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. .. Appellant
Through: Mr. A.K. Soni, Advocate
versus
GEETA DEVI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Amit Kumar Pandey,
Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. Girish Chand @ Girish Chander, aged 39 years 10 months,
employed in a salaried job with a private company, suffered death due
to the injuries sustained in a motor vehicular accident that occurred on
19.08.2010 due to negligent driving of motor vehicle described as
Trailer bearing registration no.HR-55-E-2170 admittedly insured
against third party risk with the appellant (insurer).
2. On the accident claim case (suit no.159/2010) filed by his wife
and five other members of the family dependent on him, they being
first to sixth respondents (collectively, the claimants), the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal (Tribunal), by its judgment dated
04.01.2012, awarded compensation determined in the total sum of
Rs.50,10,540/- directing the appellant (insurer of the offending
vehicle) to pay with interest at the rate of 9% p.a., the said amount
inclusive of loss of dependency calculated at Rs.48,60,540/- on the
income of Rs.24,110/- upon which the element of future prospects of
increase to the extent of 40% was added and deduction to the extent of
one-fifth made towards personal and living expenses, the multiplier of
15 having been adopted, this besides Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of
love and affection, Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses and
Rs.25,000/- towards loss of consortium.
3. The insurer by the appeal at hand questions the inclusion of the
element of future prospects to the extent of 40%. Given the fact that
the claimants had proved that the deceased was in the regular
employment of the company styled as SWAFE Business Processing
Management Pvt. Ltd. and having regard to the age, in view of the
ruling of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court rendered on
31.10.2017 in SLP (C) 25590/2014, National Insurance Company Ltd.
Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors., such element of future prospects rather will
have to be raised to the extent of 50%.
4. The contention of the insurer, however, about the deduction on
account of personal and living expenses to the extent of one-fifth is
correct. Since there are six defendants, such deduction will have to be
to the extent of one-fourth [see Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport
Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121].
5. Therefore, the loss of dependency is re-computed as
[Rs.24,110/- x 150/100 x 3/4 x 12 x 15] Rs.48,82,275/-, rounded off to
Rs.48,83,000/- (Rupees Forty eight lakh and eighty three thousand
only). Following the dispensation in Pranay Sethi (supra), however,
non-pecuniary damages are restricted to Rs.15,000/- each towards loss
of estate and funeral expenses and Rs.40,000/- towards loss of
consortium. Therefore, the total compensation in the case comes to
[Rs.48,83,000/- + Rs.15,000/- + Rs.15,000/- + Rs.40,000/-]
Rs.49,53,000/- (Rupees Forty nine lakh and fifty three thousand only).
The award is modified accordingly. It shall carry interest as levied by
the tribunal. Needless to add, Rs.50,000/- earlier paid as interim
compensation will have to be adjusted.
6. It is noted that the tribunal had specified the amount falling to
the share of the different claimants. By order dated 13.04.2012, the
insurance company had been directed to deposit eighty percent (80%)
of the awarded amount with up-to-date interest with the Registrar
General and by a subsequent order dated 01.02.2013, fifty percent
(50%) of the awarded amount was permitted to be released. Since the
award has been reduced, it is directed that the amount already received
by the claimants other than the widow (Geeta Devi) shall be treated as
the amounts apportioned in their respective favour, the entire balance
now to go to her only. The Registry shall release the balance of the
amount payable to the first claimant under the modified award and
refund the excess in deposit to the insurance company. Conversely, if
there is further amount to be paid, the insurer shall be obliged to
deposit it with the tribunal within 30 days making it available to be
released to the claimant.
7. The statutory amount shall be refunded to the insurance
company upon proof of satisfaction of award being submitted.
8. The appeal is disposed of in above terms.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
NOVEMBER 15, 2017/yg
