Delhi High Court
Icici Lombard General Insurance ... vs Kiran & Ors. on 29 November, 2017
$~R-593
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 29th November, 2017
+ MAC APPEAL 977/2012
ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LTD. ..... Appellant
Through: Ms. Suman Bagga, Advocate
versus
KIRAN & ORS. .... Respondents
Through: Mr. S.N.Parashar, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. Surender Kumar Sharma @ Bunty, then aged over 22 years,
suffered fatal injuries in a motor vehicular accident that took place on
10.10.2007, due to the negligent driving of a motor vehicle bearing
registration no.HR-47A-4393, admittedly insured against third party
risk with the appellant (insurer) for the period in question. On
accident claim case (MACT suit no.141/2010), instituted on
25.01.2008, by the first to fifth respondents (collectively, the
claimants), the Motor Claims Accident Tribunal (Tribunal) awarded
compensation in the total sum of Rs.36,70,000/-, directing the insurer
to pay with interest at the rate of 7.5% calculating it thus :-
Compensation on account of loss of Rs.36,45,000/-
dependency
Funeral expenses Rs.5,000/-
On account of loss of love and affection Rs.10,000/-
On account of contribution towards loss Rs.10,000/-
to estate
Total Rs.36,70,000/-
2. The insurer is in appeal to question the calculation of loss of
dependency, assailing the assessment of the income at Rs.15,000/-
p.m. and taking exception to the addition of future prospects of
increase in income to the extent of 50%.
3. Having heard the learned counsel on both sides and having gone
through the tribunal's record, this court is of the opinion that the first
contention noted above must be rejected while the future prospects of
increase in income must be reduced to the extent of 40% in view of
the ruling of a 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.
4. The evidence led before the tribunal included the deposition of
the widow Kiran (PW-1) and testimony of Prakash Mohan Sharma
(PW-3), an official of Bank of Baroda, where the deceased was
operating the bank account. The evidence has proved that the
deceased was owner of the Canter / truck bearing registration no.UP-
17A-7001 which he would ply on hire to earn income. The regular
income earned is duly corroborated by the statement of bank account
produced by PW-3. In these circumstances, the finding of the tribunal
on the issue of income does not call for any interference.
5. However, in view of the requirement of correction due to future
prospects of increase in income, the loss of dependency is re-
calculated as [Rs.15,000/- x 140/100 x 3/4 x 12 x 18] Rs.34,02,000/-.
6. As pointed out by the counsel for the claimants, non-pecuniary
heads of damages granted by the tribunal are inadequate. To bring
them in accord with the dispensation in Pranay Sethi (supra), in their
lieu, Rs.40,000/- is added towards loss of consortium and Rs.15,000/-
each is added for loss to estate and funeral expenses.
7. Thus, the total compensation in the case comes to
[Rs.34,02,000/- + Rs.40,000/- + Rs.15,000/- + Rs.15,000/-]
Rs.34,72,000/- (Rupees Thirty four lakh and seventy two thousand
only). The award is modified accordingly.
8. Following the consistent view taken by this Court, the rate of
interest is increased to 9% per annum (nine percent) from the date of
filing of the petition till realization. [see judgment dated 22.02.2016
in MAC.APP. 165/2011 Oriental Insurance Co Ltd v. Sangeeta Devi
& Ors.]
9. By order dated 04.09.2012, the insurance company had been
directed to deposit 60% of the awarded amount with proportionate
interest with UCO Bank, Delhi High Court branch and by the very
same order dated i.e. 04.09.2012 followed by another order dated
25.10.2013, some amount was allowed to be released to the claimants.
The Registry shall calculate the balance with accrued interest payable
to the claimants and release the same. The insurer is directed to
satisfy the modified award by requisite deposit of the balance with the
tribunal within 30 days making it available to be released to the
claimants.
10. The statutory deposit shall be refunded to the insurer after proof
is shown of the award having been satisfied.
11. The appeal is disposed of in above terms.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
NOVEMBER 29, 2017
yg
