Delhi High Court
New India Assurance Company Ltd vs Poonam & Ors on 7 February, 2018
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: February 07, 2018
+ MAC.APP. 130/2014
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD ..... Appellant
Through: Mr.Ravinder Singh, Advocate and
Mr.Raveesha Gupta, Advocate
versus
POONAM & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Navneet Goyal, Advocate for R-1 and
R-2
+ MAC.APP. 537/2016
POONAM & ANR ..... Appellants
Through: Mr.Navneet Goyal, Advocate
versus
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD &
ORS (NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD) ..... Respondent
Through: Mr.Ravinder Singh, Advocate and
Mr.Raveesha Gupta, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
ORAL
Mac.App.Nos.130/2014 & 537/2016 Page 1
1. The above captioned two appeals are directed against common
impugned award of 19th December, 2013 vide which compensation of
`19,76,776/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum has been granted to
claimants on account of death of Akhil Bhardwaj aged 20 years in a
vehicular accident on 4th August, 2011. The facts are already noticed in
the impugned award and so need no reproduction. Suffice to note that on
the basis of evidence of mother of deceased, eye witness account and the
formal evidence, impugned award has been rendered. Learned Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) has
assessed the income of deceased on the minimum wages of a matriculate
as on 1st April, 2011 and added 50% towards future prospects and has
deducted one half towards the personal living expenses of deceased and
thereafter has computed the loss of dependency as under:-
a) Minimum wages of matriculate `7,826/-
person as on 01/04/2011
b) 50% addition towards future prospects `3,913/-
________
`11,739/-
c) 1/2 deductions on personal living expenses - `5,869.5/-
________
`5,869.5/-
2. The breakup of compensation granted under non-pecuniary heads
by the Tribunal is as under:-
1. Medicines and Treatment =`8,55,700/-
2. Loss of dependency (5,869.5/-x12x14) =`9,86,076/-
Mac.App.Nos.130/2014 & 537/2016 Page 2
3. Loss of Love and affection =`1,00,000/-
4. For funeral expenses =` 25,000/-
5. Loss of estate =` 10,000/-
Total =`19,76,776/-
(Rupees Nineteen Lacs, Seventy Six Thousand Seven Hundred and
Seventy Six only)
3. Since these above captioned appeals arise out of common
impugned award, therefore they have been heard together and are being
decided by this common judgment.
4. Learned counsel for Insurer relies upon a Constitution Bench
decision of the Supreme Court in National Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs. Pranay
Sethi & Ors. 2017 ACJ 2700 to submit that addition of 50% towards
future prospects is unwarranted and the compensation granted under non-
pecuniary heads is on the higher side. So, it is submitted that the
compensation granted vide impugned award deserves to be modified.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for Claimants submits that in
view of Constitution Bench decision of Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi's
case (supra) the age of deceased is to be made basis for applying the
multiplier and the learned Tribunal has erred in relying upon the age of
the claimants and adopted inappropriate multiplier. It is submitted on
behalf of claimants that the interest on the compensation amount has to be
9% per annum instead of 7.5% per annum as has been granted by the
Tribunal and to submit so, reliance is placed upon the decision in Pranay
Sethi's case (supra).
Mac.App.Nos.130/2014 & 537/2016 Page 3
6. Upon hearing and on perusal of the impugned award, evidence on
record and the decision cited, I find that learned Tribunal has erred in
applying the multiplier of 14 while taking into consideration the age of
the claimants whereas as per Supreme Court's decision in Pranay Sethi's
case (supra), the multiplier has to be on the basis of the age of the
deceased. Learned counsel for Claimants submits that the applicable
multiplier is of 17 and not of 14. So far as addition of 50% towards
future prospects is concerned, I find that in view of Supreme Court's
decision in Pranay Sethi's case (supra), addition of 40% towards future
prospects and not 50% is to be made in the actual salary of deceased.
7. While taking the income of the deceased at `7,826/- and adding
40% towards future prospects i.e. `3,130/- and deducting one half
towards personal living expenses of deceased, the loss of income is re-
assessed at `5,478/- per month. In light of the Supreme Court's decision
in Pranay Sethi's case (supra), loss of dependency is re-assessed as
(`5,478/-x12x17) = `11,17,512/-. The compensation granted under the
head of loss of love and affection is disallowed in view of dictum of
Suprme Court in Pranay Sethi's case (supra). 'Funeral expenses' are also
reduced from `25,000/- to `15,000/-.
8. The compensation granted by the Tribunal under the head of 'loss
of estate' is enhanced from `10,000/- to `15,000/- to bring it in tune with
the parameters laid down by the Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi's case
(supra). Thus, the total compensation payable is re-assessed as under:-
1. Medicines and Treatment =`8,55,700/-
Mac.App.Nos.130/2014 & 537/2016 Page 4
2. Loss of dependency ( `5,478x12x17) =`11,17,512/-
3. Funeral expenses =` 15,000/-
5. Loss of estate =` 15,000/-
Total =`20,03,212/-
9. The re-assessed compensation shall carry interest @ 9% per annum
instead of 7.5% as awarded by the Tribunal.
10. These two appeals are disposed of while modifying the impugned
award to the aforenoted extent while making it clear that the
apportionment of liability and mode of dispersal would be as per the
impugned award. As per order of 10th February, 2014, the awarded
compensation was deposited with the Registrar General of this Court and
80% of it has been already released to the claimants. Insurer is directed
to deposit the compensation as per the modified award within a period of
six weeks. Thereafter the compensation be released forthwith by the
Registry to the claimants as per the modified award. After the Insurer has
deposited the impugned compensation as per this judgment, the statutory
deposit, if any, be refunded as per rules.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
FEBRUARY 07, 2018
mamta
Mac.App.Nos.130/2014 & 537/2016 Page 5
