Delhi High Court
National Insurance Co Ltd vs Keshav Mehto & Ors on 25 October, 2017
$~8
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 25th October, 2017
+ MAC.APP. 975/2016 and CM 43491/2016
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Manu Shahalia, Advocate
versus
KESHAV MEHTO & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Praveen Walia, proxy Counsel
for R-1 & 2
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. Pradeep Mehto, a bachelor, aged about 26 years, suffered
injuries in a motor vehicular accident that occurred on 19.01.2014 due
to the negligent driving of a car bearing registration no.DL-9CP-2689
admittedly insured against third party risk with the appellant /
insurance company (insurer) for the period in question. His parents,
first and second respondents (collectively, the claimants), filed
accident claim case (old suit no.280/2014 - new MACT suit
no.476647/16) on 25.03.2014.
2. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Tribunal) after inquiry
held the driver of the car (third respondent) responsible for the
accident and thus found him and the registered owner of the car
(fourth respondent), jointly and severally liable to pay the
compensation. It computed compensation in the total sum of
Rs.10,59,636/- and directed the appellant / insurance company to pay.
3. The insurer by the appeal at hand questions the finding on the
issue of negligence submitting that the evidence showed that even the
deceased while driving the motorcycle, which was one of the vehicles
involved in the collision, had been negligent. It also questions the
calculation of loss of dependency on the ground that the tribunal has
wrongly gone by the age of the deceased to choose the multiplier
ignoring the fact that the claim is by the parents.
4. The first respondent has died on 02.08.2017. The learned
counsel representing the claimants submitted copy of the death
certificate. He submitted that the name of the first respondent may be
deleted as the compensation deserves to be paid, now in the changed
circumstances, entirely to the second respondent (mother). In these
circumstances, the name of the first respondent is deleted from the
array of parties.
5. The contention of the insurance company on the issue of
contributory negligence cannot be accepted. The tribunal had
considered this submission but rejected it for sound reasons. It is clear
from the copy of the site plan which is part of the record of the
tribunal (page 239) that the deceased was moving on the motorcycle
from Uttam Nagar to Delhi Cantt. (i.e. from East to West direction),
this journey requiring him to negotiate a T-point wherein the road in
question meets another road on its southern side, the said other road
leading to Block D-2, Janak Puri. The evidence clearly shows that the
insured car had approached from the opposite direction and was taking
a right turn. The accident occurred a few minutes prior to midnight.
There is no effort made to bring on record the status of the traffic
signals at the relevant point of time. Since the car driver was taking a
right turn and in that process would have blocked the path of the
traffic coming from the other side, it was primarily his responsibility
to be more careful. In these circumstances, the plea of contributory
negligence is repelled.
6. This court in MACA 467/2016, Reliance General Insurance Co.
Ltd. Vs. Gomti & Ors., decided on 24.08.2017 ruled as under :-
"6. The question as to the choice of multiplier in cases of
deaths of bachelors, had come up before this Court in
MAC appeal No. 431/2016 National Insurance Co. Ltd.
vs. Mohd. Siddique & Ors. decided on 18th July, 2017,
where it was urged on behalf of the insurance company
that the law laid down by the Supreme Court in cases of
General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport
Corporation vs. Susamma Thomas & Ors., (1994) 2 SCC
176 and U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and Ors.
vs. Trilok Chandra and Ors., (1996) 4 SCC 362 continues
to prevail as the binding precedent. This Court, after
examining the issue in light of the decisions in
aforementioned cases and in the cases of Reshma Kumari
vs. Madan Mohan (2013) 9 SCC 65 and noting the dicta
in Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community & Anr.
v. State of Maharashtra & Anr., (2005) 2 SCC 67; Safiya
Bee v. Mohd. Vajahath Hussain @ Fasi, (2011) 2 SCC 94
and Union of India & Ors. v. S.K. Kapoor, (2011) 4 SCC
589, held as under:-
"16. Since the decision in Trilok Chandra and
Ors., (supra) by a bench of three Hon'ble
Judges is prior in time in relation to the
decisions in Reshma Kumari (supra) and Munna
Lal Jain (supra), it is the statement of law on
choice of multiplier in the former which is to be
taken as the binding precedent. Thus, this court
will follow the dictum in the said judgment and
adopt the multiplier according to the age of the
deceased or that of the claimants, whichever is
higher".
7. The tribunal has noted, that the claimant mother was 62
years old on the relevant date. Her age naturally being
higher the multiplier of 7 would apply, as per the
dispensation in Sarla Verma (Smt.) & Ors. v. Delhi
Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121."
7. The loss of dependency thus is to be recomputed with the
multiplier chosen according to the age of the mother. The copy of the
voter identity card (Ex. PW1/B) submitted by the claimants would
show that the second respondent (mother) was 59 years old in January
2008. This would mean her age on the relevant date was 65 years.
Thus, the multiplier of 7 would apply. The tribunal calculated the
monthly loss of dependency after deducting the personal expenses at
Rs.4459/-.
8. Therefore, the loss of dependency on which the award for
compensation is to be made is calculated as [Rs.4459 x 12 x 7]
Rs.3,74,556/-, rounded off to Rs.3,75,000/- (Rupees Three Lakh and
seventy five thousand only). It is noted that the tribunal has granted
Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of love and affection and Rs.25,000/- each
towards funeral charges and loss to estate. Following the dispensation
in Shriram General Insurance Co Ltd v. Usha, MACA 160/2015,
decided on 05.05.2016, the said awards are increased to Rs.1,50,000/-
Rs.50,000/- and Rs.50,000/- respectively.
9. Therefore, the total compensation in the case comes to
[Rs.3,75,000/- + Rs.1,50,000/- + Rs.50,000/- + Rs.50,000/-]
Rs.6,25,000/- (Rupees Six Lakh and twenty five thousand only). The
award is modified accordingly. It shall carry interest at the rate of 9%
p.a. (nine percent) and shall be payable in entirety to the second
respondent (mother).
10. By order dated 23.11.2016, the insurance company had been
directed to deposit the awarded amount with interest with the tribunal
as a pre-condition to the stay against execution. By order dated
19.07.2017, twenty five percent (25%) of the said amount was allowed
to be released to the claimants. The tribunal shall now calculate the
balance payable to the second respondent in terms of the modification
ordered above and release the same refunding the excess in deposit to
the insurance company.
11. The statutory amount shall also be refunded to the insurance
company.
12. The appeal and the pending application filed therewith are
disposed of in above terms.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
OCTOBER 25, 2017
yg
