Delhi High Court
Manjeet Singh Malhotra & Anr. vs National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. on 7 September, 2017
$~R-172
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 07th September, 2017
+ MAC APPEAL 85/2010 and CM Nos.2666-2668/2010
MANJEET SINGH MALHOTRA & ANR. ..... Appellants
Through: None
versus
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Nanita Sharma, Adv. for R-1
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. Ranjeet Kaur, aged about 40 years, suffered injuries in a motor
vehicular accident that occurred on 08.07.2005 at Mehrauli Bus
Terminal, New Delhi, involving negligent driving of a bus bearing
registration no.DL-1PA-6282, which was admittedly insured against
third party risk with the first respondent (insurer) for the period in
question and died in the consequence. The appellants, they being
husband and son respectively of the deceased (collectively, the
claimants), instituted accident claim case (petition no.381/2006) on
07.09.2006 seeking compensation impleading besides the insurer, the
driver and registered owner of the bus as party respondents, last two
being second and third respondents.
2. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Tribunal), by judgment
dated 08.07.2009, upheld the claim for compensation holding the bus
driver to be responsible. The said finding has attained finality as it
was not challenged by any of the affected parties. The tribunal
computed the compensation in the sum of Rs.4,06,204/-, it inclusive of
Rs.3,91,204/- towards loss of dependency and Rs.5,000/- each on
account of loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses.
3. Feeling aggrieved with the amount of compensation, the present
appeal was filed, the prime contention being that the award is
inadequate under all relevant heads.
4. The claimants had pleaded that the deceased was employed with
M/s. Asian Townsville Farms Ltd., 12/78, Vikram Vihar, Lajpat
Nagar-IV, New Delhi, at a gross salary of Rs.8,000/- in the capacity of
Office Executive. They led evidence to prove this fact, not only
through the testimony of the claimant Manjeet Singh Malhotra (PW-
3), but also by examining two witnesses from the said entity, they
being Surjit Singh (PW-2) and Umesh Prasad (PW-4). The tribunal,
however, was not satisfied with the said evidence. It found it to be not
inspiring confidence and so on the basis of educational qualifications,
inter alia, proved by certificate of completion of the course in Office
Management and Business Communication (Ex.PW1/11), Computer
Education Certificate (Ex. PW1/12) and course in DTP (Ex. PW1/14),
it assessed the income notionally at Rs.3492.90. This being the wages
payable to a matriculate during the relevant period.
5. On appraisal of the evidence led on record with the assistance of
the counsel representing the first respondent (insurer), this court finds
that the view taken by the tribunal in rejecting the evidence of PW-2
and PW-4 cannot be accepted. It does appear that the deceased had
been appointed with effect from 01.07.2005 only and had worked with
the said entity for around a week. But then, the close proximity of the
commencement of employment and the death itself cannot lead to the
evidence to be junked. The witness had proved the attendance record.
It was a record kept in regular course of business and, therefore, could
not have been trashed because the witness who appeared on behalf of
the employer was unable to affirm or identify each signatory. The
evidence about the employment and the wages earned at Rs.8,000/-
p.m., thus, are found to be deserving acceptance. The loss of
dependency will have to be calculated accordingly.
6. The tribunal committed another error in computation by
adopting the multiplier of 14. Since the deceased was around 40
years, the proper multiplier was 15. Thus calculation of the loss of
dependency is worked out as (Rs.8,000/- x 2 / 3 x 12 x 15)
Rs.9,60,000/-.
7. It is noted that the award under the non-pecuniary heads of
damages are also highly deficient. Following the rulings in Rajesh &
Ors. v. Rajbir Singh & Ors., (2013) 9 SCC 54 and Shashikala V.
Gangalakshmamma (2015) 9 SCC 150, awards of Rs.1,00,000/- each
towards loss of love and affection, loss of consortium and Rs.25,000/-
each towards loss of estate and funeral expenses are added.
8. Thus, total compensation in the case is computed as
(Rs.9,60,000/- + Rs.1,00,000/- + Rs.1,00,000/- Rs.25,000/- +
Rs.25,000/-] Rs.12,10,000/- (Rupees Twelve Lakh and ten thousand
only). The award is modified accordingly. Needless to add, it shall
carry interest as levied by the tribunal.
9. The first respondent is directed to satisfy the enhanced award by
requisite deposit with the tribunal within 30 days making it available
to be released.
10. The appeal and the pending applications are disposed of in
above terms.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
SEPTEMBER 07, 2017
yg
