Delhi High Court
Reliance General Insurance Ltd. vs Smt. L. Shanti Devi & Ors. on 20 August, 2018
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: August 20, 2018
+ MAC.APP.460/2015
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE LTD. ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Rajeev M. Roy and Mr. P.
Srinivasan, Advocates
Versus
SMT. L. SHANTI DEVI & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Ms. Anne Mathew, Advocate for
respondents No.1 & 2
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
1. Impugned Award of 20th March, 2015 grants compensation of
`33,40,038/- with interest @ 8% p.a. to respondent-Claimants on account
of death of one Supervisor-L. Binoy Singh, aged 26 years, in a vehicular
accident on 31st October, 2009.
2. The factual background of this case, as noticed in the impugned
Award, is as under:-
"The case of the petitioners is that on 31.10.2009
when Sh. Ginkhanmug Tombing, S.N. Bijen Singh, Sh.
Kalvin and deceased were going in Maruti 800 bearing
No. DL 8 CC 0083 which was driven by Sh. Ginkhanmug
Tombing and when they reached at Raja Garden Crossing
in the meantime Hyundai i-10 car bearing registration No.
DL 4C AJ 5940 which was being driven by its
driver/respondent No.1 in rash and negligent manner and
at a very high sped hit the Maruti car from back side with
great force. Resultantly Sh. L. Binoy Singh, Sh. Kalvind
and Bijen sustained grievous injuries. Deceased was
removed to Khetrapal Hospital and was further shifted to
Max Hospital and died on 16.11.2009."
3. On the basis of evidence led, impugned Award has been rendered
by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (henceforth referred to as "the
Tribunal"). The Tribunal has found that deceased was a bachelor aged 26
years and his income has been taken as `18,000/- per month in the face of
Salary Certificate (Ex. PW1/18) [Salary Certificate, which is exhibited as
PW1/28 though inadvertently recorded by the Tribunal as PW1/18]. The
Tribunal has made addition of 50% towards „future prospects‟ and has
deducted 50% towards „personal expenses‟. The breakup of
compensation awarded by the Tribunal is as under:-
1.) Loss of dependency : `27,54,000/-
2.) Funeral expenses : `25,000/-
3.) Loss of Estate : `10,000/-
4.) Loss of Love & Affection : `1,00,000/-
5.) Medical expenses incurred : `4,51,038/-
_________
Total : `33,40,038/-
4. The challenge to impugned Award by learned counsel for
appellant-Insurer is on the ground of contributory negligence of driver of
Maruti Car, which was involved in this accident. According to Insurer's
counsel, Salary Certificate (Ex.PW1/28) has not been proved on record.
Lastly, it is submitted by Insurer's counsel that the compensation granted
by the Tribunal under the „non-pecuniary heads‟ needs to be brought in
tune with Supreme Court's Constitution Bench decision in National
Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. (2017) 16 SCC 680.
5. On the contrary, learned counsel for respondent-Claimants
supports the impugned Award and submits that there is no negligence of
the driver of Maruti Car and that the compensation has been rightly
assessed by the Tribunal. However, on the aspect of interest granted by
the Tribunal, it is submitted that it is on lower side and it needs to be
enhanced from 8% to 9% per annum.
6. Upon hearing and on perusal of impugned Award, evidence on
record and the decision cited, I find that on negligence aspect, there is
evidence of N.Bijen Singh and Kalvin, who were travelling with the
deceased in the vehicle in question and from their evidence, the
negligence of driver of the insured vehicle stands proved. The site plan of
the place of accident (Ex. PW1/2) corroborates their version. Upon
scrutiny of cross-examination of these two witnesses-N.Bijen Singh and
Kalvin, I find that nothing worthwhile has been brought out in their cross-
examination to demolish the reliable version of the accident in question
and so, the plea of lack of negligence on part of the driver of insured
vehicle is repelled.
7. So far as deceased's Salary Certificate (Ex.PW1/28) is concerned, I
find that deceased had passed Higher Secondary Examination from
Manipur and was employed as an Assistant Team Leader with e-call
International Pvt. Ltd. and as per Salary Certificate of deceased issued in
August, 2006, he was drawing net pay of `16,419/-p.m. N.Bijen Singh
(PW-2) has proved the deceased's „appointment letter‟ and Salary
Certificate (Ex.PW1/28) issued by him in the year 2009, which reveals
that he was drawing salary of `18,000/- p.m. while working as Senior
Supervisor. Although from the evidence of N.Bijen Singh (PW-2), Salary
Certificate (PW1/28) has been proved on record, but on perusal of the
cross-examination of this witness, I find that salary was paid to the
deceased in cash and no salary record was maintained by this witness
(PW-2). This aspect assumes importance in view of the fact that deceased
was a childhood friend of this witness (PW-2). So far as salary record for
the month of August, 2006, produced by Claimant regarding deceased's
employment with e-call International Pvt. Ltd. and of deceased drawing
net pay of `16,419/- is concerned, I find that this Salary Certificate has
not been proved on record. However, taking the judicial notice of the fact
as to what would be the salary of employees of Call-Centres in the year
2009, it is deemed appropriate to assess the income of deceased at
`10,000/- per month as he was Senior Supervisor/Team Leader. In view
of Supreme Court's Constitution Bench decision in Pranay Sethi (Supra),
I find that the Tribunal has erred in making addition of 50% towards
„future prospects‟. Infact, addition towards „future prospects‟ has to be
40% and is ordered accordingly. Since deceased was a bachelor,
therefore, deduction of 50% towards „personal expenses‟ has been rightly
made by the Tribunal and is thus maintained. Accordingly, „loss of
dependency‟ is reassessed as under: -
`10,000/- X 12 X 140/100 X 17 X 50/100= `14,28,000/-
8. The compensation granted by the Tribunal under the „non
pecuniary heads‟, needs to be brought in tune with Supreme Court's
Constitution Bench decision in Pranay Sethi (supra). Accordingly,
compensation granted by the Tribunal under the head of "loss of love &
affection" is disallowed. The "funeral expenses" are reduced from
`25,000/- to `15,000/- whereas compensation granted under the head
"loss of estate" is enhanced from `10,000/- to `15,000/-.
9. In light of the aforesaid, the compensation payable to respondent-
Claimants is reassessed as under:-
S.No. Description Amount
1. Loss of Dependency `14,28,000/-
2. Funeral Expenses `15,000/-
3. Loss of Estate `15,000/-
Total `14,58,000/-
10. Consequentially, the compensation amount payable to respondent-
Claimants stands reduced from `33,40,038/- to `14,58,000/-. A Three
Judge Bench of Supreme Court in a recent decision of Jagdish v. Mohan
and Others, (2018) 4 SCC 571 has granted interest @ 9% per annum on
the awarded compensation and so, respondent- Claimants are also entitled
to interest @ 9% per annum. The modified compensation be released to
respondent-Claimants within four weeks from today in the ratio and
manner as indicated in impugned Award. Statutory deposit alongwith
excess deposit, if any, be refunded to appellant-Insurer.
11. With aforesaid directions, this appeal is disposed of.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
AUGUST 20, 2018
s
