Delhi High Court
Jyoti & Ors. vs Oriental India Insurance Co. Ltd. ... on 24 October, 2017
$~R-354
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 24th October, 2017
+ MAC APPEAL 533/2011 and CM 19950/2015
JYOTI & ORS. ..... Appellants
Through: None
versus
ORIENTAL INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.
& ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Sreenath S., Adv. for R-1
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. Ram Baran @ Ram Sharan, found by the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal (Tribunal) to be aged 51 years on the relevant date,
died due to the injuries suffered in a motor vehicular accident that took
place on 19.05.2008 due to the negligent driving of a chartered bus
bearing registration no.DL-1PA-1929, admittedly insured against third
party risk with the first respondent (insurer) for the period in question.
2. The appellants being members of the family dependent upon the
deceased Ram Baran @ Ram Sharan (collectively, the claimants)
instituted accident claim case (suit no.393/2010/2008) on 02.06.2008
seeking compensation impleading the said insurer besides the driver
and owner of the bus, they being the second and third respondents
respectively in the appeal.
3. After inquiry, by judgment dated 24.11.2010, the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal (Tribunal) accepted the case for
compensation holding the bus driver responsible for the accident. It
awarded compensation in the total sum of Rs.4,55,380/- inclusive of
Rs.3,80,380/- towards loss of dependency, Rs.25,000/- towards
funeral expenses and Rs.50,000/- towards loss of consortium.
4. The driver and owner of the bus had suffered the proceedings
ex-parte. The insurer had taken the plea that the driver was not
holding a valid or effective driving licence at the relevant time. This
plea was accepted and the insurer who was called upon to pay the
compensation was granted right to recover the same from the said
driver and owner of the bus.
5. The appeal at hand was filed seeking enhancement of the
compensation on the ground that the loss of dependency had not been
properly worked out as the choice of multiplier of 10 was incorrect
and that the income of Rs.7,500/- p.m. from M/s. A.R.C. Detectives
Pvt. Ltd. was improperly ignored. Alongwith the appeal, the
claimants also filed an application (CM 19950/2015) seeking to place
on record a salary certificate purportedly issued by M/s. A.R.C.
Detectives Pvt. Ltd. indicating the emoluments of the deceased to be
Rs.5,000/- p.m.
6. The appeal was admitted and directed to be taken up on its own
turn as per order dated 17.02.2016. When it is taken up for hearing,
there is no appearance on behalf of the appellant. The matter has been
considered with the assistance of the counsel for the insurer and upon
perusal of the tribunal's record.
7. The salary certificate purportedly issued by M/s. A.R.C.
Detectives Pvt. Ltd., as submitted with the application (CM
19950/2015), cannot be given any credence in view of what was
submitted before the tribunal. The claimants had sought an
opportunity to examine the employer but then gave up the said effort.
They conceded through counsel before the tribunal that the income be
assessed on the basis of minimum wages. The document now filed
even otherwise, appears to be a procured one in that it does not go
well with the pleadings to the effect that the deceased was earning
Rs.7,500/- p.m. from such entity.
8. In these circumstances, the only error found committed by the
tribunal is in the choice of multiplier (10) which actually should have
been higher (11), keeping in view the age (51 years) of the deceased
at the relevant point of time. Since the loss of annual dependency was
worked out at Rs.38,038/-, the said amount would need to be added to
the compensation to make up the deficiency under the head of loss of
dependency.
9. Having regard to the rulings in Rajesh & Ors. v. Rajbir Singh &
Ors., (2013) 9 SCC 54 and Shashikala V. Gangalakshmamma (2015) 9
SCC 150, award under the head of loss of consortium (Rs.50,000/-) is
found to be inadequate and there is further deficiency in that there is
no award under the head of loss of love and affection. Adding
Rs.1,00,000/- each under the said counts and further including
Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses, the compensation needs to be
increased by [Rs.38,038/- + Rs.50,000/- + Rs.1,00,000/-]
Rs.1,88,038/- (Rupees One Lakh eighty eight thousand and thirty eight
only).
10. The award is thus increased to [Rs.4,55,380/- + Rs.1,88,038/-]
Rs.6,43,418/-, rounded off to Rs.6,44,000/- (Rupees Six Lakh and
forty four thousand only). Needless to add, it shall carry interest as
levied by the tribunal. This judgment does not disturb the recovery
rights granted to the insurer.
11. The insurer is directed to deposit the entire enhanced portion of
the award with the tribunal with corresponding interest within 30 days.
The enhanced portion in entirety shall fall to the share of the first
appellant / Jyoti (widow).
12. The appeal and the application filed therewith stand disposed of
in above terms.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
OCTOBER 24, 2017
yg
