Delhi High Court
National Insurance Company Ltd. vs Indra Chauhan & Ors on 4 January, 2018
$~R-711
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 4th January, 2018
+ MAC APPEAL 19/2013
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Arihant Jain for Ms. Shantha
Devi Raman, Advocate.
Versus
INDRA CHAUHAN & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. A.K. Soni, Advocate for
R-8.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. Mukand Lal Chauhan, aged 36 years, working as Post Graduate
Teacher (PGT) with Kendriya Vidayalaya Sangathan, was travelling
on 04.06.2007 in bus bearing registration No.UA-07J-0761 (the bus)
of Uttrakhand Parivahan Nigam (the seventh respondent) it admittedly
having been insured against third party risk for the period in question
with Oriental Insurance Company Limited (the eighth respondent). At
about 0130 hours, the said bus came to be involved in a collision with
Trailer Truck bearing registration No. HR-32T-3255 (the truck) driven
by the fourth respondent (the driver of the truck), it admittedly being
registered in the name of fifth respondent (owner of the truck) and
registered against third party risk with National Insurance Company
Limited (the appellant). As a result of the collision and the injuries
suffered consequently, Mukand Lal Chauhan died. An accident claim
case (MACT No.994/07) was instituted by his wife and two daughters,
they being first to third respondents (collectively, the claimants) on
07.11.2007 seeking compensation, impleading the driver, owner and
the insurer respectively, both of the truck and the bus.
2. The Tribunal held inquiry and, by judgment dated 11.09.2012,
returned a finding that the accident had occurred due to negligent
driving of the truck holding its driver and owner liable to pay
compensation. The Tribunal awarded total sum of Rs. 40,13,680/- and
calculated it thus:-
1. Loss of dependency Rs. 36,13,680/-
2. Funeral Charges Rs. 25,000/-
3. Loss of Estate Rs. 75,000/-
4. Loss of consortium Rs. 50,000/-
5. Loss of love, company and affection Rs. 1,50,000/-
etc.
6. Notional loss of gratuitous service Rs. 1,00,000/-
Total Rs. 40,13,680/-
3. The liability to pay the compensation with interest at 9% per
annum was fastened on the insurer of the truck which has come up in
appeal to assail the said judgment.
4. The appeal was put in the list of 'Regulars' as per order dated
10.02.2016. When it is called out in its turn, there is no appearance on
behalf of the claimants or other respondents except the insurer of the
bus.
5. The learned counsel for the insurers of both the vehicles have
been heard and the record perused.
6. The first contention urged by the insurer of the truck is that the
evidence led also showed contributory negligence on the part of the
bus driver. Reference is made in this regard to the testimony of Dayal
Singh (PW-2) who was also a passenger in the bus at the time of the
accident. No doubt, PW-2 in the course of his deposition spoke about
the bus driver having used recklessly fast speed, but then it is clear
from the other evidence on record that this was not the reason for the
collision to take place. The two vehicles had approached the place of
accident from opposite directions. The insurer of the truck had filed
copy of the site plan Annexure-A2 which itself showed that it is the
truck which had come in the wrong lane meant for the movement of
the bus from South to North. In these circumstances, the head-on
collision between the two vehicles took place because the truck had
suddenly come in the path of the bus. Negligence on the part of the
truck driver is writ large on the record and the finding to the effect
returned by the Tribunal does not call for any interference by this
Court.
7. The Tribunal found that the deceased was earning Rs.20,076/-
as salary from his employment with Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan.
It added the element of future prospects of increase to the extent of
50% and applied the multiplier of 15, after making deduction of 1/3rd
towards personal and living expenses. The contention of the insurer of
the truck is that in computing the loss of dependency, the income tax
liability should have been deducted.
8. Having regard to the level of earnings and the rates of Income
Tax prevalent at that point of time along with the standard deduction
to which the deceased, a salaried employee, would have been entitled,
this Court finds no case made out for any such deduction. In these
circumstances, the calculation of loss of dependency by the Tribunal is
found free from any error.
9. The non-pecuniary heads of damages, however, need to be re-
visited in view of ruling of the 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. Thus, in lieu of
the awards under different heads of non-pecuniary damages granted
by the Tribunal, Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium and
Rs.15,000/- each for loss to estate and funeral expenses are added.
The compensation is thus, reduced to Rs.(36,13,680 + 40,000 +
15,000 + 15,000) Rs.36,83,680/- rounded off to Rs.36,84,000/-
(Rupees Thirty Six Lakhs Eighty Four Thousand Only). Needless to
add, the award shall carry interest as levied by the Tribunal.
10. By order dated 08.01.2013, the appellant had been directed to
deposit the entire awarded amount with up-to-date interest with UCO
Bank, Delhi High Court Branch. Out of such deposit, 80% was
directed to be released to the claimants. The Registry shall calculate
the balance amount payable to the claimants under the modified award
and release the same refunding the excess in deposit to the appellant.
11. The statutory amount be refunded to the insurance company.
12. The appeal is disposed of in above terms.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
JANUARY 4, 2018
srb
