Delhi High Court
Nasarin vs Megma Hdi Gen Ins Co Ltd & Ors. on 27 August, 2018
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: August 27, 2018
+ MAC.APP. 106/2018
NASARIN ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Anshuman Bal, Advocate
Versus
MEGMA HDI GEN INS CO LTD & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Ved Tripathi, Advocate for
respondent No.1
Mr. Sarfraz Khan, Advocate for
respondent No.2-owner
+ MAC.APP. 107/2018
NAAJREEN & ORS. ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Anshuman Bal, Advocate
Versus
MEGMA HDI GEN INS CO LTD & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Ved Tripathi, Advocate for
respondent No.1
Mr. Sarfraz Khan, Advocate for
respondent No.2-owner
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
(ORAL)
1. The above captioned two appeals arise out of impugned Award of
11th August, 2017, vide which the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
(henceforth referred to as the "Tribunal") has awarded compensation of
`12,58,624/- with interest @ 9% p.a. to Claimants on account of death of
MAC.APP. 107/2018
Lock Repairer- Afsar, aged 25 years, in a vehicular accident which took
place on 9th July, 2016.
2. In this unfortunate accident in question, a Housewife-Nasarin was
grievously injured and the Tribunal has granted compensation of
`84,324/- with interest @ 9% p.a. to her, which is under challenge in the
above captioned first appeal.
3. Since these two appeals arise out of one vehicular accident,
therefore, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, these
appeals have been heard together and are being decided by this common
judgment.
4. The factual background of this case, as noticed in the impugned
Award, is as under:-
"Brief facts of the case is that on 09.07.2016 at
about 04.00 PM, petitioner Nasarin and deceased Afsar
alongwith other persons were going from Kabela Aligarh
to Sadabad, Aligarh in a vehicle bearing registration No.
UP-86T-2821 which was driven by respondent No.1 in a
rash and negligent manner and with high speed. All the
occupants of above-said vehicle asked the respondent
No.1 to drive carefully, but he kept on driving the vehicle
in rash and negligent manner. When the vehicle reached
in front of Shri R B Cold Storage, Chandpa, respondent
No.1 overtook another vehicle in negligence manner and
the vehicle overturned due to which all occupants
alongwith petitioner Nasarin and deceased Afsar suffered
injuries. Petitioner was taken to Tyagi Hospital, Aligarh.
Deceased was taken to District Hospital, Hathras. Later
on, he was taken to Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi
where he died on 16.07.2016."
MAC.APP. 107/2018
5. To render the impugned Award, the Tribunal has primarily relied
upon evidence of Injured-Nasarin and Claimants/ legal heirs of deceased-
Afsar and evidence of Respondent-Insurer on record. On the strength of
evidence recorded, impugned Award has been rendered.
6. The breakup of compensation awarded by the Tribunal to legal
heirs of deceased -Afsar is as under:-
1 Loss of dependency `10,23,624/-
2 Funeral Expenses `25,000/-
3 Loss of Love & Affection `1,00,000/-
4 Loss of estate `10,000/-
5 Loss of Consortium `1,00,000/-
Total `12,58,624/-
7. The breakup of compensation awarded by the Tribunal to Injured-
Nasarin is as under:-
1. Compensation for medical expenses `18,000/-
2. Compensation for special diet, `15,000/-
attendant and conveyance
3. Compensation for pain and sufferings `30,000/-
4. Compensation for loss of income `21,324/-
Total `84,324/-
8. Learned counsel for appellants seeks modification of the impugned
Award to the effect that liability to pay the awarded compensation should
be of the Respondent-Insurer, while relying upon a recent Supreme Court
decision in Manuara Khatun & ors. Vs. Rajesh Kumar Singh & Ors.
(2017) 4 SCC 796 and submits that the Respondent-Insurer must pay and
recover. Enhancement in the quantum of compensation granted to legal
MAC.APP. 107/2018
heirs of deceased-Afsar, is sought on the ground that the Tribunal has
assessed income of deceased on minimum wages payable to an unskilled
workman in U.P. but has failed to make any addition towards "future
prospects". Reliance is placed by appellants' counsel upon Supreme
Court's Constitution Bench decision in National Insurance Company Ltd.
Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. (2017) 16 SCC 680 to seek addition of 40%
towards "future prospects", as deceased was aged 25 years on the day of
accident.
9. It is also submitted by counsel for appellants that the Tribunal has
erred in deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses. It is pointed out that
the widow of deceased in her evidence has clearly deposed that father of
deceased was also dependent upon him and so, deduction of 1/4 th towards
personal expenses ought to have been made.
10. The opposition to these appeals by learned counsel for Respondent-
Insurer is on the ground that the liability is of the driver and owner of the
vehicle in question and Respondent-Insurer has no liability to pay the
awarded compensation. It is submitted that awarded compensation is not
required to be enhanced on the basis of Supreme Court's Constitution
Bench decision in Pranay Sethi (Supra), as the said decision had been
rendered after passing of the impugned Award. It is also submitted on
behalf of Respondent-Insurer that the income of deceased has not been
established and so, appellant cannot avail of the benefit of Supreme
Court's Constitution Bench decision in Pranay Sethi (Supra). Nothing
substantial has been urged on behalf of owner and driver of insured
vehicle.
MAC.APP. 107/2018
11. Upon hearing and on perusal of impugned Award, evidence on
record and the decisions cited, I find that the Tribunal has rightly assessed
the income of deceased-Afsar on the basis of minimum wages of an
unskilled workman applicable in U.P. In view of Supreme Court's
Constitution Bench decision in Pranay Sethi (Supra), addition of 40%
towards "future prospects" is made. Since father of deceased-Afsar was
also dependent upon him, therefore, deduction of 1/4 th and not 1/3rd
towards personal expenses is made. Accordingly, the "loss of
dependency" to legal heirs of deceased-Afsar, is re-assessed as under:-
`7,108/-(rounded off) X 12 X 140/100 X 3/4 X 18 = `16,12,095/-
12. 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 to legal heirs of deceased-Afsar
under the head of „loss of love & affection‟ is disallowed. The „funeral
expenses‟ are reduced from `25,000/- to `15,000/- and „loss of
consortium‟ is also reduced from `1,00,000/- to `40,000/-. However,
compensation granted under the head „loss of estate‟ is enhanced from
`10,000/- to `15,000/- Consequentially, the compensation payable to
legal heirs of deceased-Afsar is reassessed as under:-
1 Loss of dependency `16,12,095/-
2 Funeral Expenses `15,000/-
3 Loss of estate `15,000/-
5 Loss of Consortium `40,000/-
Total `16,82,095/-
13. In the light of aforesaid, total compensation payable to legal heirs
MAC.APP. 107/2018
of deceasd- Afsar is enhanced from `12,58,624/- to `16,82,095/-. The
reassessed compensation shall carry interest @ 9% per annum. The
enhanced compensation alongwith interest be deposited with the
Registrar General of this Court by respondent-Insurer within six weeks
and thereafter, it be disbursed to legal heirs of deceased-Afsar in the ratio
and manner, as indicated in the impugned Award. So far as Injured-
Nasarin is concerned, I find that the quantum of compensation granted to
her is just and reasonable and is hence maintained. The compensation
awarded be released to Injured- Nasarin forthwith.
14. In view of Supreme Court's decision in Manuara Khatun (Supra),
the respondent-Insurer has to first pay the awarded compensation and
thereafter recover it, from the owner and driver of the insured vehicle.
Accordingly, respondent-Insurer is granted recovery rights against owner
and driver of insured vehicle in question.
15. With aforesaid directions, the above captioned two appeals are
disposed of.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
AUGUST 27, 2018
r
MAC.APP. 107/2018
