Delhi High Court
The New India Ass. Co. Ltd. vs Saroj Devi & Ors. on 26 October, 2017
$~4
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 26th October, 2017
+ MAC APPEAL 1053/2016
THE NEW INDIA ASS. CO. LTD. ..... Appellant
Through: Ms. Awantika Manohar, Adv.
Versus
SAROJ DEVI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. S.N. Parashar, Adv. for R1
to R3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. Amit Kumar, bachelor, aged 24 years, died in motor vehicular
accident that occurred on 04.09.2014 due to negligent driving of bus
bearing registration no. DL-1PC-6613, admittedly insured against the
third party risk for the period in question with the appellant (insurer).
His parents and sister they being first to third respondents
(collectively, the claimants) instituted accident claim case (old no. 609
14 & MACT case no. 476864/16) on 11.11.2014 seeking
compensation. The tribunal by judgment dated 25.10.2016 accepted
the claim for compensation under section 166 Motor Vehicles Act,
1988, holding the bus driver Guru Charan Singh (respondent)
responsible for the accident.
2. The tribunal awarded compensation in the total sum of Rs.
35,52,000/- and directed the insurer to pay the said amount, such
amount inclusive of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards loss of love and affection
and Rs. 25,000/- each towards loss of estate and funeral charges and
the balance on account of loss of dependency.
3. The insurer questions the computation of compensation pointing
out several errors including the addition of the element of future
prospects and the invocation of the multiplier of 18. Per contra, the
claimants argued that the tribunal fell into error by ignoring certain
regular allowances from the earnings and that the non-pecuniary
damages as awarded are inadequate.
4. Since the evidence led clearly proves that the deceased was a
regular employee though of a private company, in the capacity of a
field executive going by the terms of his engagement as reflected inter
alia in the appointment letter (Ex-PW1/2) and salary slips (Ex-PW1/3
& 5), it is clear and vivid that the income would progressively rise. In
the face of such evidence, the element of future prospects of increase
cannot be grudged. [see judgment dated 28.03.2016 in MAC.APP.
548/2013 titled as, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kamla & Ors.]
5. The grievance of the claimants against exclusion of travelling
allowance and washing allowance is correct. Such allowances, going
by the fact that engagement in the private entity was regular and these
perks would result in corresponding savings cannot be kept out. Thus,
the income of the deceased will have to be taken as Rs. 23,500/- per
month for calculating the loss of dependency.
6. In MAC APP. 467/2016 titled Reliance General Insurance
Company Limited Vs. Gomti & Ors. decided on 24.08.2017, this Court
has held 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. Since, it is a case of a bachelor's death, the prime claim being
for and on behalf of mother, it is her age which should regulate the
choice of multiplier. The learned counsel on both the sides agree that
the age of the mother was correctly shown in proceedings as 54 years
and, therefore, the multiplier of 11 would apply. The loss of
dependency is thus recalculated as (23500x150/100/2x12x11) Rs.
23,26,500 rounded off to Rs. 23,27,000/-.
8. Having regard to the date of accident, following the ruling in
the case of Shriram General Insurance Co Ltd v. Usha,
MAC.APP.No.160/2015, decided on 05.05.2016, the awards under the
heads of loss of love and affection, loss to estate and funeral expenses
are increased to 1,50,000/- , 50,000/- and 50,000/- respectively.
9. Therefore, the total compensation in the case is computed as
(23,27,000+1,50,000+50,000+50,000) Rs. 25,77,000/- (Rupees twenty
five lacs and seventy seven thousand only). The award is reduced
accordingly. Needless to add it shall carry interest as levied by the
tribunal.
10. By order dated 09.12.2016, the insurance company had been
directed to deposit the entire awarded amount with interest with the
tribunal within four weeks as pre-condition to the stay against
execution. By order dated 15.05.2017 read with order 31.05.2017, part
of the deposited amount was permitted to be released, the balance
retained. The tribunal shall now calculate the balance payable to the
claimants in the terms of the modification ordered above and release
the same, refunding the excess in deposit to the insurance company.
11. Statutory amount shall be refunded.
12. This disposes of the appeal and the application filed by the
appellant.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
OCTOBER 26, 2017
umang
