Delhi High Court
Reliance General Insurance Co. ... vs Deveshwari Devi & Ors. on 27 October, 2017
$~R-379 & 380
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 27th October, 2017
+ MAC APPEAL 751/2011 & CM 15704/2011
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. ... Appellant
Through: Mr. Arun Yadav, Advocate
versus
DEVESHWARI DEVI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Navneet Goyal, Adv. for R-
1&2
+ MAC APPEAL 71/2012
DEVESHWARI DEVI & ANR. ..... Appellants
Through: Mr. Navneet Goyal, Advocate
versus
AKRAM & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Arun Yadav, Adv. for R-3
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. Vishwambar Pd. Joshi, a bachelor, aged 24 years, employed
with Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. as Assistant Supervisor, suffered
injuries in a motor vehicular accident that occurred on 30.05.2008 due
to negligent driving of bus bearing registration no.DL-1PB-9169 and
died in the consequence. His parents, appellants in MACA 71/12
(collectively, the claimants) instituted accident claim case (MACT
1236/08) on 30.07.2008 seeking compensation impleading the owner,
driver and insurer respectively of the bus as party respondents. The
insurer is now the appellant in MACA 751/2011.
2. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Tribunal) after inquiry,
by judgment dated 06.07.2011, accepted the case that the death had
occurred due to the negligent driving of the bus. It awarded
compensation in the total sum of Rs.16,87,500/-, it inclusive of
Rs.10,000/- each towards loss of love and affection, loss to estate and
funeral charges, the balance being the component under the head of
loss of dependency. The liability to pay was fastened on the insurer,
there being no adjudication on its plea that there was breach of the
terms and conditions of the insurance policy for the reason the driver
of the bus Shripal Yadav (respondent in these appeals) was not
holding a valid or effective driving licence.
3. The claimants have come up in appeal seeking enhancement of
compensation on the ground that the loss of dependency was worked
out without adding the element of future prospects of increase and
against the multiplier of 13 ignoring the fact that the prime claim was
for and on behalf of the Deveshwari Devi (mother), who was 43 years
old on the relevant date for which reason multiplier of 14 should have
been adopted. The claimants also submitted that the non-pecuniary
damages awarded are deficient.
4. On the other hand, the insurance by its appeal submits that its
plea of breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy
should have been accepted and it should have been granted recovery
rights.
5. The submissions of the claimants are found to be correct.
Having regard to the terms and conditions of the engagement of the
deceased with Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., which were proved by Vijay
Vir Singh (PW-2), Assistant Manager (HR), it is clear that the same
would ensure progressive rise in income. In these circumstances, the
element of future prospects of increase to the extent of 50% is added.
Having regard to the age of the mother, the multiplier of 14 would
apply.
6. Thus, the loss of dependency is recomputed as [Rs.2,55,000/- x
150/100 / 2 x 14] Rs.26,77,500/- (Rupees Twenty six lakh seventy
seven thousand and five hundred).
7. Following the rulings in Rajesh & Ors. v. Rajbir Singh & Ors.,
(2013) 9 SCC 54 and Shashikala V. Gangalakshmamma (2015) 9 SCC
150, the non-pecuniary damages are increased to Rs.1,00,000/- on
account of loss of love and affection and Rs.25,000/- each towards
loss to estate and funeral expenses.
8. Thus, the total compensation is computed as [Rs.26,77,500/- +
Rs.1,00,000/- + Rs.25,000/- + Rs.25,000/-] Rs.28,27,500/-, rounded
off to Rs.28,28,000/- (Rupees Twenty eight lakh and twenty eight
thousand).
9. The Tribunal had apportioned the award granted by it equally
amongst the parents. It is directed that the entire enhanced portion of
the award with corresponding interest shall fall to the share of the
mother Deveshwari Devi, it to be released to her in the form of fixed
deposit receipt taken out from Nationalized bank in her name for a
period of five years with provision for auto renewal and right to draw
periodic interest. The insurer is directed to satisfy the enhanced award
by requisite deposit with the tribunal within 30 days.
10. It is noted that the owner and driver of the offending vehicle,
they being third and fourth respondents in MACA 751/2011 had
chosen to suffer the proceedings before the tribunal ex parte. They
were served in the appeal but would not appear.
11. During the inquiry before the tribunal, the insurance company
had examined Satyan Kapur (R3W1), Deputy Manager, who deposed
on the strength of his affidavit (Ex.R3W1/A). By the said evidence,
he had testified that the copy of the driving licence which had been
made available, upon verification, had been found to be fake. He
proved report to this effect (vide Ex. R3W1/B). There is no contest to
the said evidence from the side of the owner or the driver. Since they
have failed to respond by proving any facts to the contrary, it has to be
assumed that the driver of the vehicle was not holding a valid or
effective driving licence at the time of the accident. This constitute
breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy.
12. In the consequence, the appeal of the insurance company on
above plea is allowed. It is granted recovery rights against the third
and fourth respondents in MACA 751/2011.
13. By order dated 24.08.2011 in MACA 751/2011, the insurance
company had been directed to deposit the entire awarded amount with
up-to-date interest with the Registrar General as a pre-condition to the
stay against execution. By subsequent order dated 24.02.2012, fifty
percent (50%) was permitted to be released to the claimants. The
balance lying in fixed deposit with accrued interest shall also be
released to the claimants, as per the modification ordered above.
14. The statutory amount deposited by the insurance company shall
be refunded, on proof of the award as enhanced being satisfied.
15. Both appeals and the pending application are disposed of in
above terms.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
OCTOBER 27, 2017
yg
