Delhi High Court
Sbi General Insurance Co Ltd vs Divya Rani & Ors on 28 August, 2018
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: August 28, 2018
+ MAC.APP. 934/2017 & CM 38490/2017
SBI GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Pankaj Singh Thakur,
Advocate
versus
DIVYA RANI & ORS .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Navneet Goel, Advocate for
respondents No.1 to 4
+ MAC.APP. 425/2018
DIVYA RANI & ORS .....Appellants
Through: Mr. Navneet Goel, Advocate
versus
SBI GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD & ORS .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Pankaj Singh Thakur,
Advocate for respondent-Insurer
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
(ORAL)
1. The above-captioned two appeals are directed against Award of 3rd
August, 2017 vide which compensation of `27,40,000/- with interest @
9% per annum has been awarded to Claimants. In the above-captioned
first appeal, the Insurer seeks reduction in the quantum of compensation
granted by the Tribunal, whereas in the above-captioned second appeal,
enhancement of compensation is sought by Claimants. Since these two
appeals arise out of common Award of 3rd August, 2017, therefore, both
these appeals have been heard together and are being decided by this
common judgment. The facts as noted in opening paragraphs of the
impugned Award are as under:-
"As per the case set up in the claim petition, Dinesh
Kumar was going on his scooty bearing registration no.
DL11 SD-5969 on aforesaid date and time, when the
alleged offending vehicle being driven at high speed, in
rash and negligent manner and without following traffic
norms by respondent no.1, came from Sonipat side and
hit against the scooty of deceased, as a result of which
deceased fell down on the road and his head was crushed
under the rear wheel of said truck. He died at the spot.
FIR no.344/13 U/s 279/304-A IPC was registered at PS
Jahangir Puri with regard to the said accident."
2. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as
„the Tribunal‟) has primarily relied upon the evidence of wife of Dinesh,
who had died in a vehicular accident on 18th September, 2013. The
Tribunal has also relied upon the evidence of PW3-Employer of deceased
and the other evidence on record to award the compensation as noted
hereinabove. Dinesh was aged 47 years on the day of this vehicular
accident and as per the evidence of PW3-Employer of deceased, Dinesh
was working as a Salesman and was earning `20,000/- per month. The
Tribunal has not added anything towards „future prospects‟ while
calculating the „loss of dependency‟ and since deceased was married, one-
fourth has been deducted towards „personal expenses‟ of the deceased
and multiplier of 13 has been applied and the „loss of dependency‟ has
been assessed at `23,40,000/-. Compensation of `1,50,000/- each has
been awarded under the head of 'loss of love and affection' and „loss of
consortium‟. Under the head of 'loss of estate' and „funeral expenses‟,
composite compensation of `1,00,000/- has been granted by the Tribunal.
The break-up of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is as under:-
1) Loss of Dependency = Rs.23,40,000/-
2) Loss of Love and Affection = Rs. 1,50,000/-
3) Loss of Consortium = Rs. 1,50,000/-
4) Loss of Estate & Funeral Expenses = Rs. 1,00,000/-
____________
Total = Rs.27,40,000/-
3. The challenge to the impugned award by learned counsel for
Insurer is on the ground that income of the deceased has been erroneously
assessed by the Tribunal, as there is no appointment letter, attendance
register and receipt regarding payment of salary. It is submitted on behalf
of Insurer that the salary of the deceased ought to be computed on
minimum wages payable to a skilled worker. Reliance is placed by
Insurer's counsel upon Supreme Court's Constitution Bench decision in
National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & ors. (2017) 16
SCC 680 to seek reduction in the quantum of compensation granted by
the Tribunal.
4. On the contrary, learned counsel for the Claimants refutes the
aforesaid stand taken on behalf of Insurer and submits that the
compensation granted by the Tribunal is inadequate and it needs to be
suitably enhanced. It is pointed out by Claimants' counsel that in view of
Supreme Court's Constitution Bench decision in Pranay Sethi (supra),
addition of 30% towards „future prospects‟ ought to be made and so, the
quantum of compensation granted by the Tribunal needs to be suitably
enhanced.
5. Upon hearing and on perusal of impugned Award, evidence on
record and the decision cited, I find that there is no challenge to the
Salary Certificate of the deceased proved on record by PW3. The
Tribunal has rightly taken the income of deceased to be `20,000/- per
month. In view of Supreme Court's Constitution Bench decision in
Pranay Sethi (supra), addition of 25% towards „future prospects‟ has to
be made and it is accordingly made. The „loss of dependency‟ is
reassessed as under: -
`20,000/- p.m. X 12 X 13 X 3/4 X 125/100 = `29,25,000/-
6. The compensation granted by Tribunal under the non-pecuniary
heads needs to be brought in tune with the decision in Pranay Sethi
(supra). Accordingly, compensation of `1,50,000/- granted by the
Tribunal under the head of 'loss of love and affection' is disallowed.
Compensation of `1,50,000/- granted by the Tribunal under the head of
„loss of consortium‟ is reduced to `40,000/- and composite compensation
of `1,00,000/- granted under the head of „loss of estate & funeral
expenses‟ is reduced to `30,000/-. Accordingly, the compensation
payable to the Claimants is re-assessed as under:-
1) Loss of Dependency = `29,25,000/-
2) Loss of Consortium = ` 40,000/-
3) Loss of Estate & Funeral Expenses = ` 30,000/-
____________
Total = `29,95,000/-
7. In light of the aforesaid, compensation of `27,40,000/- granted by
the Tribunal, is enhanced to `29,95,000/- which shall carry interest @ 9%
per annum. The mode of disbursement of the compensation shall be as
per the impugned Award. Registry is directed to refund the statutory
deposit subject to deposit of enhanced compensation by the Insurer within
six weeks from today and thereafter, the reassessed compensation be
released to the Claimants in terms of this judgment but in the manner as
indicated by the Tribunal in the impugned Award.
8. With aforesaid directions, both the appeals and the pending
application are accordingly disposed of.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
AUGUST 28, 2018
s
