Delhi High Court
National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Prem Chand Gudial & Ors. on 16 November, 2017
$~R-500
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 16th November, 2017
+ MAC.APP. 499/2012
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Pankaj Seth, Adv.
versus
PREM CHAND GUDIAL & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. Sachin Gudial, a bachelor, aged 24 years, earning his livelihood
from a private employment died due to injuries sustained in motor
vehicular accident that occurred on 05.06.2011, on account of
negligent driving of motor vehicle described as Eicher Canter bearing
registration no. HR 38Q 9198, admittedly insured against third party
risk for the period in question with appellant (insurer). His parents,
first and second respondents (collectively, the claimants) instituted
accident claim case (Regn. no. 616/2011) on 05.07.2011 which was
decided by the tribunal, by judgment dated 18.02.2012, awarding Rs.
17,06,400/- as compensation with interest @ 9% per annum, the
liability having been fastened against the insurer.
2. The insurer presses the appeal to question the method of
calculation of loss of dependency taking exception to the element of
future prospects of increase in income being added to the extent of
50%, submitting that in view of 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., this
should have been restricted to 40%.
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant, this Court
finds no merit in the submission made. The mere fact that the
deceased was in private employment would make no difference. The
fact remains that he was in regular employment with the same
employer since 2006. In these circumstances, the element of future
prospects has to be added and it has been correctly factored in by the
tribunal at 50%.
4. It is, however, noted that there is an error committed by the
tribunal in choosing the multiplier of 13. Having regard to the ruling
of the Constitution Bench in Pranay Sethi (supra), endorsing the
earlier view taken in Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport
Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121, the multiplier has to be
picked up according to the age of the deceased. Since the deceased
was 24 years old, the multiplier of 18 would apply. It being the
bounden duty of this Court to ensure that just compensation is
awarded, the loss of dependency is recomputed on (14,200 x 150 ÷
100 x 1/2 x 12 x 18) Rs. 23,00,400/-, rounded off to Rs. 23,01,000/-.
5. It is noted that the tribunal had added Rs. 25,000/- towards
funeral expenses, Rs. 20,000/- for loss of love & affection. This in
view of Pranay Sethi (supra), would not be correct. Instead of the said
amounts, Rs. 15,000/- each towards loss to estate and funeral expenses
are added.
6. Therefore, the total compensation in the case comes to
(23,01,000 + 15,000 + 15,000) Rs. 23,31,000/- (Rupees Twenty Three
Lakhs Thirty One Thousand only). The award is modified
accordingly. It shall carry interest as levied by the tribunal.
7. It is directed that the enhanced portion of the award shall fall to
the share of second respondent Rajo Devi (mother) alone, it to be
released in her name in the form of fixed deposit account taken out
from a nationalized bank for a period of seven years with right to draw
periodic interest.
8. By order dated 07.05.2012, the insurance company had been
directed to deposit the entire awarded amount with the claims tribunal
within six weeks. By subsequent order dated 25.02.2013, 60% was
permitted to be released to the claimants in terms of the judgment of
the tribunal. Since the award has been increased, the balance lying in
deposit shall also be released to the claimants. The insurance
company will be obliged to satisfy the enhanced award by requisite
deposit with the tribunal within thirty days, making it available to be
released.
9. The statutory amount shall be refunded only after proof of the
satisfaction of the award being furnished.
10. The appeal is disposed of in above terms.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
NOVEMBER 16, 2017/nk
