Delhi High Court
United India Insurance Company ... vs Rajender Kumar & Ors on 14 September, 2017
$~11
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 14th September, 2017
+ MAC.APP. 339/2016 and CM APPL.14396/2016 (stay)
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
.....Appellant
Through: Mr. Pankaj Gupta, Advocate
versus
RAJENDER KUMAR & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. S.N. Parashar, Advocate
with Ms. Pankaj Kumari,
Advocate for R-1 & R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. The claim petition (MACT No.481/2009) instituted on
11.07.2009 by the first and second respondents (collectively, the
claimants) relates to the death of their bachelor son Sagar in a motor
vehicular accident that occurred on 13.04.2009, due to negligent
driving of dumper bearing registration No.HR-37A-7248, admittedly
insured against third party risk with the appellant insurance company
(insurer). The tribunal after inquiry, by judgment dated 03.02.2016,
awarded compensation in the sum of Rs.6,98,256/- directing the
insurer to pay the same with interest @ nine per cent (9%) per annum,
the said amount inclusive of Rs.4,73,256/- towards loss of
dependency, Rs.1,00,000/- each towards loss of love and affection and
loss to estate and Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses.
2. The insurer by the appeal at hand questions the calculation of
loss of dependency on the ground that it is based on the multiplier of
18, wrongly chosen as per the age of the deceased and further that the
award under the heads of loss to estate is excessive.
3. On the issue of choice of the multiplier in the case of death of a
bachelor, this Court in case titled Reliance General Insurance
Company Limited vs. Gomti & Ors., MAC APP.467/2016, decided on
24th August, 2017, has observed 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"."
4. Going by the evidence of the father (PW-12), the learned
counsel on both sides agree that the age of the mother would fall
within the range of 36-40 years and, therefore, the multiplier of 15
would apply.
5. After notionally assessing the income and making deduction of
fifty per cent (50%) towards personal and living expenses, the tribunal
had assumed the monthly loss of dependency at Rs.2191/- per month.
The loss of dependency, thus, is calculated as (2191/- x 12 x 15)
Rs.3,94,380/-, rounded off to Rs.3,95,000/-.
6. The award of Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss to estate is way above
the amount generally awarded. Following the ruling in Rajesh & Ors.
v. Rajbir Singh & Ors., (2013) 9 SCC 54 and Shashikala V.
Gangalakshmamma (2015) 9 SCC 150, the said amount is determined
at Rs.25,000/-. Putting together the other heads of damages awarded
by the tribunal, the total compensation comes to (3,95,000/- +
1,00,000/- + 25,000/- + 25,000/-) Rs.5,45,000/- (Rupees Five Lakh
Forty Five Thousand Only). The award is modified accordingly. It
shall carry interest as levied by the tribunal.
7. By order dated 25.04.2016, the insurer had been directed to
deposit the entire awarded amount with interest with the tribunal and
out of such deposit, fifty per cent (50%) was allowed to be released. It
is noted that the tribunal had apportioned the compensation awarded
by it by specifying the amounts that would fall to the share of the
respective claimants. Since amount has been reduced, it is directed
that the amount already released to the first respondent (father) shall
be treated as his share. The entire balance amount with corresponding
interest now go to the second respondent (mother) only.
8. The tribunal shall calculate the amount payable in terms of the
modification ordered above and release the same to the claimants from
out of the balance which has been retained, refunding the excess to the
insurance company along with the statutory amount.
9. The appeal along with accompanying application stands
disposed of in above terms.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
SEPTEMBER 14, 2017
vk
