Delhi High Court
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. vs Rajender Singh & Ors. on 20 September, 2017
$~R-242
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 20th September, 2017
+ MAC APPEAL No. 608/2010
ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Praveen Sehrawat &
Mr. Abhishek Kumar, Advs.
versus
RAJENDER SINGH & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. Dharampal, aged 25 years, who earned his livelihood working
as a driver, yet unmarried, suffered injuries in motor vehicular
accident that occurred on 29.05.2006 at about 3:45 a.m., it involving
negligent driving of truck bearing registration no. HR 55C 5844,
admittedly insured against third party risk with the appellant insurance
company (insurer) for the period in question and died in the
consequence. First to sixth respondents, they being his siblings and
members of the family (collectively, the claimants), instituted accident
claim case (suit no. 276/2008) on 15.11.2006. The tribunal held
inquiry and, by judgment dated 13.05.2010, awarded compensation in
the total sum of Rs. 5,70,000/- and directed the insurer to pay with
interest @ 9% per annum, the said amount inclusive of Rs. 4,00,000/-
towards loss of dependency.
2. The insurer questions the award under the head of loss of
dependency, this in addition to another amount of Rs. 10,000/-
towards loss of estate, submitting that since all the claimants were
well-settled in their respective lives, there being no proof of
dependency, the claim could not have been treated as one for loss of
dependency. It is submitted that instead of 50% of the notional
earnings of the deceased being treated as dependency loss, only 1/3rd
should have been granted as loss to estate following the view taken by
a learned single judge in such situation in Keith Rowe vs. Prashant
Sagar & Ors. MAC Appeal No. 601/2007 dated 15.01.2010.
3. It is noted that the first claimant (first respondent) Rajinder
Singh appearing as witness (PW-3) on the basis of his affidavit had
stated that the claimants were financially dependent on the deceased
and during cross-examination, explained that both he (Rajinder Singh)
and the deceased (Dharampal) being the elder brothers were looking
after and supporting the rest of the family financially. The case of
Keith Rowe (supra) is distinguishable as it concerned the claim of the
husband in a case where wife had died. The evidence of PW-3 about
the dependency loss has remained unimpeached. The contention of
the insurance company that brothers can never be treated as
dependents being unacceptable as a thumb rule.
4. In above view, the appeal is devoid of substance and is
dismissed.
5. The amount deposited by the insurance company in terms of
order dated 14.09.2010, shall now be released to the claimant in terms
of the impugned judgment.
6. Statutory deposit is forfeited as costs in favour of Delhi High
Court Legal Services Committee.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
SEPTEMBER 20, 2017
nk
