Delhi High Court
National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Smt. Bimla & Ors on 21 February, 2018
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Judgment: February 22, 2018
+ MAC.APP. 590/2014, CM Nos.10741/2014, 20565/2014 & 41375/2016
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD ..... Appellant
Through: Mr.Arihant Jain, Advocate for Ms.Shantha
Devi Raman, Advocate
versus
SMT. BIMLA & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Kamaldeep, Advocate
+ MAC.APP. 51/2015, CM Nos.28655/2015 & 20436/2017
BIMLA & ORS ..... Appellants
Through: Mr.Kamaldeep, Advocate
versus
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD ..... Respondent
Through: Mr.Arihant Jain, Advocate for Ms.Shantha
Devi Raman, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
(ORAL)
1. The above captioned two appeals are directed against Award of 22nd
March, 2014 vide which compensation of `13,05,000/- with interest @ 9%
per annum has been awarded to Claimants. In the above captioned first
appeal, the Insurer seeks reduction of quantum of compensation granted,
whereas in the above captioned second appeal, enhancement of
compensation is sought by Claimants. Since these two appeals arise out of
common Award of 22nd March, 2014, 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:-
"Brief facts of the case are that on 09.06.09 the deceased
was going with his cousin brother Naveen on the motorcycle
from Gurgaon to Green Park via Ber Sarai. He was sitting
on the back seat of the motorcycle bearing no. RJ 19 SM
7309. At about 2.00 PM when they reached near Ber Sarai
market a bus bearing No. DL 1P B 7255 came towards them
at a high speed rashly and negligently and hit them from left
side. They fell down and sustained injuries. The cousin
brother of the deceased took the deceased to Trauma Centre
in a TSR where he was declared brought dead. A case vide
FIR No. 209/09 was registered at police station Hauz Khas.
It was stated that the deceased was working with Manish
Logistic Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon and earning Rs. 10,000/- p.m.
He was 19 years of age. It was stated that the offending
vehicle was being driven by respondent no: 1, owned by
respondent no: 2 and insured with respondent no: 3."
2. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the
Tribunal') has relied upon the evidence of mother of Mandeep who had died
in a vehicular accident on 9th June, 2009. The Tribunal has also relied upon
the evidence of injured (PW-2) and the other evidence on record to award
the compensation as noted hereinabove. Mandeep was aged 19 years on the
day of this vehicular accident and as per the evidence of injured (PW-2),
deceased was working in Manish Logistics and was earning `10,000/- per
month. It is matter of record that the aforesaid evidence remains
unchallenged. The Tribunal has calculated the loss of dependency by
adding 50% towards future prospects and since deceased was unmarried,
one-half has been deducted towards the personal expenses of the deceased
and by applying the multiplier of 13, the loss of dependency has been
assessed at `11,70,000/-. Compensation of `1,00,000/- has been awarded
under the head of 'Love and Affection' and 'Funeral Expenses' of `25,000/-
have been granted by the Tribunal. Under the head 'Loss of Estate'
`10,000/- has been granted. The break-up of compensation awarded by the
Tribunal is as under:-
1) Loss of Dependency = Rs.11,70,000/-
2) Loss of Love and Affection = Rs. 1,00,000/-
3) Funeral Expenses = Rs. 25,000/-
4) Loss of Estate = Rs. 10,000/-
____________
Total = Rs.13,05,000/-
3. The challenge to the impugned award by learned counsel for Insurer
is on the ground that there is no documentary evidence on record regarding
income of the deceased and addition towards future prospects has to be 40%
and not 50%. To seek reduction of the compensation under the non-
pecuniary heads, reliance is placed upon decision of the Constitution Bench
of the Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi
& Ors. 2017 SCC OnLine SC 1270.
4. On the contrary, learned counsel for the Claimants submits that the
compensation granted by the Tribunal is inadequate and it needs to be
suitably enhanced by applying multiplier as per the age of the deceased. To
submit so, attention of this Court is drawn to a Constitution Bench decision
of the Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi
& Ors. 2017 SCC OnLine SC 1270. So, it is submitted that the
compensation granted needs to be suitably enhanced.
5. Upon hearing and on perusal of impugned award, evidence on record
and the decision of Constitution Bench of Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi
(supra), I find that evidence regarding the income of the deceased remains
unchallenged and so the income of the deceased has to be taken as `10,000/-
per month. So far as addition towards future prospects is concerned, it ought
to be 40% and not 50%. While taking the annual income of the deceased to
be `1,20,000/-, 40% is added towards future prospects i.e. `48,000/- and the
annual income of the deceased is thus assessed at `1,20,000/- + `48,000/- =
`1,68,000/-. After deducting one-half towards personal expenses, the 'Loss
of Income' is re-assessed at `84,000/- per annum. The Constitution Bench
of Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi (supra) has now categorically declared
that the age of deceased should be the basis for applying the appropriate
multiplier and so, applying the dictum of Supreme Court's decision in
Pranay Sethi (supra) to the facts of the instant case, multiplier of 18 is
applied as the deceased was aged 19 years on the day of the accident. Thus,
the 'Loss of Dependency' is re-assessed at `84,000/- x 18 = `15,12,000/-.
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 granted by the Tribunal under the non-pecuniary
heads is reduced from `1,35,000/- to `30,000/-. The compensation of
`1,00,000/- granted by the Tribunal under the head of 'Loss of Love and
Affection' is disallowed as the Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi (supra) has
clarified that the head relating to 'Loss of Care' etc. does not exist.
Accordingly, the compensation payable to the Claimants is re-assessed as
under:-
1. Loss of dependency: `15,12,000/-
2. Loss of estate `15,000/-
3. Funeral Expenses `15,000/-
__________
Total compensation: `15,42,000/-
7. In light of the aforesaid, compensation of `13,05,000/- granted by the
Tribunal, is enhanced to `15,42,000/- which shall carry interest @ 9% per
annum. The ratio and mode of disbursement of the compensation shall be as
per the impugned Award. Registry is directed to refund the statutory deposit
as per rules subject to deposit of enhanced compensation by the Insurer and
thereafter, the compensation be released to the Claimants in terms of the
judgment but in the same ratio as indicated by the Tribunal in the impugned
Award.
8. With aforesaid directions, both the appeals are accordingly disposed
of.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
FEBRUARY 22, 2018
mamta
