Delhi High Court
Anita Yadav & Ors. vs Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & ... on 4 July, 2018
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: July 04, 2018
(i) + MAC.APP. 66/2013
ANITA YADAV & ORS. .....Appellants
Through: Mr. Nitin Yadav, Advocate
Versus
ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. & ORS.
.....Respondents
Through: Mr. J.P. Shahi, Advocate
(ii) + MAC.APP. 65/2013
ANITA YADAV .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Nitin Yadav, Advocate
Versus
ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. & ORS.
.....Respondents
Through: Mr. J.P. Shahi, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
(ORAL)
1. The above captioned two appeals are directed against Award of 1 st
August, 2012, vide which Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (henceforth
referred to as "the Tribunal") has granted compensation of `9,52,248/-
MAC.APP. 66/2013
with interest @ 9% p.a. to claimants on account of death of one Suresh
Chand, aged 25 years in a vehicular accident on 6th January, 2010.
2. In the above captioned first appeal, impugned Award is assailed on
the ground that no compensation has been granted for the damage to car
of deceased in the accident in question. In the above captioned second
appeal, enhancement of compensation is sought by legal heirs of
deceased.
3. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, both the
appeals have been heard together and are being decided by this common
judgment.
4. The factual background of this case, as noticed in the impugned
Award, is as under:-
That on 06.01.2010 at about 11.50 A.M., deceased was
driving Toyota Jeep bearing Registration No. DL 9CC 0036
along with other occupants for coming towards Delhi from
village Kalamatpur, District Kaithal, Haryana. When they
reached near Pinjupura, P.S. Kalamat, District Kaithal,
Haryana, in the meanwhile, the offending vehicle i.e. Tata
Truck bearing Registration No. HR 37B 6069 came there,
being driven by Respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent
manner and hit against the Jeep of the deceased from
opposite side. This resulted in head on collision between
both the vehicles, due to which Shri Suresh Chand fell down
and sustained injuries which ultimately proved fatal.
MAC.APP. 66/2013
5. On the basis of evidence led, impugned Award has been rendered
by the Tribunal and the breakup of compensation awarded is as under:-
1.) Loss of dependency : `8,32,248/-
2.) Loss of Love & Affection : `1,00,000/-
3.) Funeral Expenses : `10,000/-
4.) Loss of Estate : `10,000/-
_________
Total : `9,52,248/-
6. Enhancement of compensation is sought by learned counsel for
claimants on the ground that addition of 30% towards "future prospects"
have been made by the Tribunal while taking the age of deceased to be 25
years but in light of decision of Constitution Bench of Supreme Court in
National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & ors. (2017) 16
SCC 680, addition towards "future prospects" has to be 40%. Learned
counsel for claimants further submits that the deceased was working as
Supervisor in M/s Classic Automobiles at a salary of `9,000/- per month
and the Salary Certificate has been proved as Ex.PW3/1, which has been
erroneously discarded by the Tribunal on the premise that there is nothing
on record to prove that PW-3 was the proprietor of M/s Classic
Automobiles and as per this witness, neither any receipt regarding the
salary being paid to the deceased was issued nor any attendance register
was maintained. Therefore, the Tribunal has taken the income of
deceased at the minimum wages of unskilled worker, which according to
appellant's counsel is unjustified. So, it is submitted that in view of
Salary Certificate (Ex.PW3/1), income of the deceased ought to be
assessed and quantum of compensation ought to be suitably enhanced.
MAC.APP. 66/2013
7. On the contrary, learned counsel for respondent-Insurer supports
the impugned Award and submits that the compensation awarded is just
and fair.
8. Upon hearing and on perusal of impugned Award and the evidence
on record, I find that claimants have not led any evidence regarding the
extent of damage caused to the vehicle in question. Learned counsel for
appellants has relied upon the Mechanical Inspection Report to show the
extent of damage caused to the vehicle in question. It was brought to the
notice of this Court by learned counsel for Insurer that it is an offence to
drive the vehicle without insurance cover. Attention of this Court is
drawn to Section 196 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which provides for
imprisonment upto three months or fine, which may extend to `1,000/- or
with both for driving a vehicle without insurance cover. Since the
deceased was driving an uninsured vehicle and no evidence has been led
regarding damage caused, therefore, I find that the Tribunal has rightly
declined the compensation on account of damage caused to the vehicle in
question.
9. Regarding the Salary Certificate (Ex.PW3/1), I find that it has
come in the cross-examination of Sharafat (PW-3) that he used to pay
salary to the deceased in cash and did not obtain any receipt thereof and
was not maintaining any register. In view thereof, the Tribunal was
justified in assessing the income of deceased on minimum wages.
However, keeping in view the copy of driving licence of deceased on
record, I find that the minimum wages payable to a skilled workman
ought to be the basis to assess the income of deceased. It is brought to
MAC.APP. 66/2013
the notice of this Court that minimum wages payable to the skilled
workman, when this accident took place were `4,377/- p.m.
10. In view of Supreme Court's decision in Pranay Sethi (Supra),
addition of 40% towards "future prospects" is to be made and after
deducting 1/4th towards "personal expenses" of deceased and by
applying multiplier of 18, the "loss of dependency" is reassessed as
under:-
`4,377/- X 12 X 18 X 3/4 X140/100 = `9,92,703.6 (rounded off
to `9,92,704/-)
11. Since no cross-objections have been filed by respondent-Insurer,
therefore, the compensation granted under the "non-pecuniary heads" is
not disturbed.
12. In the light of aforesaid, total compensation payable to appellants is
enhanced from `9,52,248/- to `11,12,704/-which shall carry interest @
9% per annum. The enhanced compensation be deposited within four
weeks by respondent-Insurer with the Tribunal and it be disbursed in the
ratio and manner, as indicated in the impugned Award.
13. Consequentially, the above captioned first appeal i.e.
MAC.App.65/2013 is dismissed, whereas the above captioned second
appeal MAC.App. 66/2013 is allowed in abovesaid terms.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
JULY 04, 2018
r
MAC.APP. 66/2013
