Delhi High Court
Darshana & Ors. vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd. on 6 July, 2018
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: July 06, 2018
+ MAC. APP.92/2013
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Pankaj Gupta, Advocate
versus
DARSHANA & ORS. ....Respondents
Through: Mr. Navneet Goyal, Advocate for
respondents-Claimants
+ MAC. APP.572/2013
DARSHANA & ORS. ..... Appellants
Through: Mr. Navneet Goyal, Advocate
versus
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. ....Respondent
Through: Mr. Pankaj Gupta, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
(ORAL)
1. The above-captioned two appeals are directed against impugned
Award of 1st November, 2012 vide which Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal-01, West, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as
„the Tribunal‟) has awarded compensation of `21,51,000/- with interest
@ 7.5% per annum to Claimants on account of death of one Ravinder in a
vehicular accident on 8th March, 2011. The above-captioned first appeal
is by the Insurer to seek reduction of the quantum of compensation
granted, whereas in the above-captioned second appeal, Claimants seek
enhancement in the quantum of compensation granted by the Tribunal.
2. The factual background of this case, as noticed in the impugned
Award, is as under:-
"The case of the petitioners is that on 08.03.11 at
near M.S.Marg Red Light, Marble Market, Rajouri
Garden, Delhi Sh. Ravinder (the son of the petitioners)
was going on his motorcycle bearing registration number
DL-4S-AR-9783. The deceased was hit by the vehicle
bearing registration no. HR-61-5073 which was being
driven by the respondent no. 1 in a rash and negligent
manner. Sh. Ravinder has died as a result of the accident
caused by the respondent no. 1. The petitioners has filed
the petition for the grant of compensation against the
respondents."
3. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the above-
captioned appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by
this common judgment.
4. On the basis of evidence led, the Tribunal has granted
compensation of `21,51,000/- to Claimants and its break-up is as under: -
Loss of dependency : ` 21,06,000/-
Funeral expenses : ` 10,000/-
Loss of love and affection : ` 25,000/-
Loss of Estate : ` 10,000/-
Total : ` 21,51,000/-
5. The challenge to impugned Award by learned counsel for Insurer is
on the ground that the multiplier applicable in case of deceased, who was
a bachelor, would be as per the age of his parents and not as per the age
of deceased. It is pointed out by learned counsel for Insurer that addition
of 30% towards 'future prospects' granted by the Tribunal is unjustified
as nature of employment of deceased was temporary. He further submits
that though the salary of deceased was `15,000/- per month, but he had
died on the next day of joining the new job and had not received any
salary and therefore, 'last drawn salary' by deceased in February, 2011
ought to be the basis to assess the 'loss of dependency'.
6. Learned counsel for Insurer further submits that compensation
granted under the "non-pecuniary heads" ought to be reduced in light of
decision of Constitution Bench of Supreme Court in National Insurance
Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & ors. (2017) 16 SCC 680. Thus, it is
submitted that the awarded compensation deserves to be suitably reduced.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for Claimants submits that
compensation granted by the Tribunal is inadequate and it needs to be
suitably enhanced. To submit so, it is pointed out that deceased was aged
24 years and so, addition towards 'future prospects' ought to be 50% and
not 30%. It is submitted that the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal
ought to be 9% per annum and not 7.5% per annum. Nothing else is
urged on behalf of either side.
8. Upon hearing and on perusal of impugned Award and the evidence
on record, I find that the Tribunal has rightly relied upon 'appointment
letter' of 25th February, 2011 (Ex.PW1/3) issued to deceased to take the
monthly income of deceased to be `15,000/- per month. Regarding
addition towards 'future prospects', I find that in view of Supreme Court's
Constitution Bench decision in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs.
Pranay Sethi & ors. (2017) 16 SCC 680, it has to be 40% as the deceased
was on fixed salary.
9. In the considered opinion of this Court, multiplier of 18 has been
rightly applied by the Tribunal as Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi (supra)
has clarified that the applicable multiplier would be as per the age of
deceased and not as per the age of claimants. In view of above, 'loss of
dependency' is reassessed as under: -
`15,000/- X 12 X 140/100 X 50/100 X 18 = `22,68,000/-
10. As regards compensation granted under the „non pecuniary heads‟,
it needs to be brought in tune with decision of Constitution Bench of
Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi (supra). Accordingly, compensation
granted by the Tribunal under the head of „loss of love & affection‟ is
disallowed. However, "funeral expenses" are increased from `10,000/- to
`15,000/-. Similarly, compensation granted under the head "loss of
estate" is also increased from `10,000/- to `15,000/-. As far as interest
granted by the Tribunal is concerned, I find that a Three Judge Bench of
Supreme Court in a recent decision of Jagdish v. Mohan and Others,
(2018) 4 SCC 571 has granted interest @ 9% per annum on the awarded
compensation and so, appellant is also entitled to interest @ 9% per
annum. In light of the aforesaid, the compensation payable to Claimants
is reassessed as under:-
1. Loss of dependency : ` 22,68,000/-
2. Funeral expenses :` 15,000/-
3. Loss of estate : ` 15,000/-
Total : ` 22,98,000/-
11. In light of aforesaid, total compensation payable to Claimants is
enhanced from `21,51,000/- to `22,98,000/-, which shall carry interest @
9% per annum. The enhanced compensation be deposited by Insurer with
the Tribunal within four weeks and it be disbursed to Claimants forthwith
as per this judgment and in the ratio and manner as indicated in the
impugned Award. Statutory deposit, if any, be refunded to Insurer.
12. With aforesaid directions, the above-captioned appeals are
disposed of.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
JULY 06, 2018
s
