Delhi High Court
National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Hargyan Singh & Ors on 22 January, 2018
$~48
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on :- 22nd January, 2018
+ MAC.APP. 158/2017 & CM No. 6524/2017 (stay)
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Pradeep Gaur & Mr. Amit
Gaur, Advs.
versus
HARGYAN SINGH & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Vivek Sharma & Mr. K.C.
Dixit, Advs. for R-1 & 2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. Sunil, aged 19 years, died in motor vehicular accident that
occurred on 20.11.2011, due to negligent driving of Indica Car bearing
registration no. UP 16 AT 3669, admittedly insured against third party
risk for the period in question with the appellant (insurer). On
accident claim case (suit no. 43/2015), instituted on 17.05.2012, by his
parents, i.e. first and second respondents (collectively, the claimants),
in the wake of detailed accident report (DAR) submitted by the police
on the basis of evidence gathered during investigation into
corresponding first information report (FIR no. 575/2011), of police
station Link Road, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh, the tribunal held inquiry
and, by judgment dated 26.12.2016, it awarded compensation in the
sum of Rs. 16,00,000/-, directing the insurer to pay with interest @
8% per annum excluding for certain period, calculating it by including
Rs. 13,50,000/- towards loss of dependency, Rs. 1,50,000/- towards
loss of love & affection and Rs. 50,000/- each for funeral expenses
and loss of estate.
2. The insurer by the appeal at hand questions the award on the
ground that the loss of dependency is based on wrong assumption that
the deceased was earning Rs. 10,000/- per month, there being no basis
for such conclusion. It is submitted that future prospects have been
wrongly added to the extent of 50%, reference in this regard being
made to the ruling of a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court
rendered on 31.10.2017 in SLP (C) 25590/2014, National Insurance
Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors. With reference to the same
decision exception is also taken to the non-pecuniary heads of
damages being excessive.
3. Having heard the counsel on both sides and having perused the
record, this Court finds substance in the above-noted contentions of
the insurer. The income could not be assumed merely on oral word. It
is pointed out that even the driving licence of the deceased was not
proved to substantiate the fact that he was earning his livelihood as
auto rickshaw driver.
4. In the given facts and circumstances, the income is taken as Rs.
6656/-, it being the minimum wages payable at the relevant point of
time. Given the ruling in Pranay Sethi (supra), the future prospects
have to be restricted to 40%. Multiplier has to be taken as per the age
of the deceased, and relevant multiplier would be 18. The deceased
was a bachelor, the loss of dependency is re-calculated as (6656 x 140
÷ 100 x 1/2 x 18) Rs. 10,06,387.20 rounded off to Rs. 10,07,000/-.
The non-pecuniary damages also need to be in accord with the
dispensation in Pranay Sethi (supra). Thus, in their lieu, Rs. 15,000/-
each is added on account of funeral expenses and loss to estate. The
total compensation is computed as (10,07,000 + 15,000 + 15,000) Rs.
10,37,000/-.
5. The tribunal had specified the amounts payable to the claimants.
Given the reduction in the award, it is directed that instead of the
apportionment ordered by the tribunal, the award shall be distributed
amongst first and second respondents (claimants) in the ratio of 25%
and 75% respectively.
6. Following the consistent view taken by this Court, the rate of
interest is increased to nine per cent (9%) per annum from the date of
filing of DAR, excluding the period as per the directions in the
impugned judgment. [see judgment dated 22.02.2016 in MAC.APP.
165/2011 Oriental Insurance Co Ltd v. Sangeeta Devi & Ors.]
7. The award is modified accordingly.
8. By order dated 22.02.2017, the execution of the award was
stayed subject to the amount awarded by the tribunal with interest
being deposited with the tribunal. The tribunal shall now compute the
amount payable to the claimants under the modified award and release
the same refunding the excess in deposit to the insurance company.
9. The statutory amount shall be refunded.
10. The appeal and the pending application stand disposed of in
above terms.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
JANUARY 22, 2018
nk
