Delhi High Court
Shriram General Insurance Co. ... vs Vijender & Ors. on 16 July, 2018
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: July 16, 2018
+ MAC.APP. 87/2013 & C.M.No. 1515/2013
SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Sameer Nandwani &
Mr. Junainadullah, Advocates
Versus
VIJENDER & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Kumar Mukesh, Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
(ORAL)
1. Impugned Award of 24th August, 2012 grants compensation of
`11,33,000/- with interest @ 12% p.a. to respondents-Claimants on
account of death of one- Harish Chander, aged 22 years in a vehicular
accident on 7th December, 2009.
2. The factual background of this case, as noticed in the impugned
Award, is as under:-
"Petitioners being the father, mother and brother of
deceased Harish Chander who was aged about 22 years filed
the present claim petition claiming therein a compensation of
Rs.80 lakhs with interest @18% p.a. on the ground that on
07.12.2009 the deceased was on motorcycle with reasonable
speed and at about 5.45 p.m. when he reached near Punjab
Khurd Bus Stand, Kanjhawala, Delhi, a Tempo Tata 407 no.
DL-1LE-4421 was coming in a high speed being driven
rashly, recklessly and negligently by the respondent no.3 in
the course of his employment under respondent no.2 and
insured with respondent no.1 came from front side of the
deceased at a reckless speed and hit the said motorcycle as a
result of which the deceased got death at the spot. Further it
is stated that respondent no.3 could have easily avoided and
averted this accident. After the accident the deceased was
brought to Sanjay Gandhi Hospital where he was declared as
brought dead. Further it is alleged that respondent no.3 was
solely and entirely responsible for this accident. A criminal
case under Section 279/304-A IPC was registered against
respondent no.3 vide FIR No.207/09 in police station
Kanjhawala."
3. On the basis of evidence led, impugned Award has been rendered
by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (henceforth referred to as "the
Tribunal") and the breakup of compensation awarded is as under:-
1.) Loss of dependency : `7,14,000/-
2.) Loss of income : `1,19,000/-
3.) Funeral expenses : `25,000/-
4.) Loss of estate : `75,000/-
5.) Loss of company, love and affection : `2,00,000/-
_________
Total : `11,33,000/-
4. The challenge to impugned Award by learned counsel for Insurer is
on the ground that the deceased was a student and so, his notional income
ought to be taken into consideration while assessing his income and by
relying upon Second Schedule of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, income of
`15,000/- per month has to be the basis for calculating the notional
income. Reliance is placed upon Supreme Court's decision in Master
Mallikarjun v. Divisional Manager, The National Insurance Company
Limited and Anr., AIR 2014 SC 736 and R.K. Malik & Anr. Vs. Kiran Pal
& Ors. (2009) 14 SCC 1 in support of above submissions. Lastly, it is
submitted by counsel for Insurer that that the compensation granted under
the "non-pecuniary heads" ought to be reduced in light of Constitution
Bench decision of Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd.
Vs. Pranay Sethi & ors. (2017) 16 SCC 680.
5. On the contrary, learned counsel for respondent-Insurer supports
the impugned Award and submits that the compensation awarded is just
and fair. So, it is submitted by learned counsel for respondents that this
appeal deserves to be dismissed.
6. Upon hearing and on perusal of impugned Award, evidence on
record and the decisions cited, I find that regarding deceased running two
shops and his income, there is no tangible evidence on record. No Income
Tax Return has been placed on record. In the impugned Award, the
income of deceased has been taken to be `8,500/- p.m. The minimum
wages payable to an unskilled worker on the date of accident were
`3,953/- p.m. There is nothing on record to show that the deceased was a
student and so, reliance placed upon decision in R.K. Malik (supra) is of
no avail. While taking the monthly income of the deceased to be `3,953/-
p.m. and after making addition of 40% towards "future prospects", in
light of Supreme Court's Constitution Bench decision in National
Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & ors. (2017) 16 SCC 680 and
after deducting 50% towards "personal expenses" of deceased and on
applying multiplier of 18, the "loss of dependency" is reassessed as
under:-
`3,953/- X 12 X140/100 X 18 X 50/100 = `5,97,694/-
(rounded off to `5,97,700/-)
7. As regards compensation granted under the „non pecuniary heads‟,
it needs to be brought in tune with Supreme Court's Constitution Bench
decision in Pranay Sethi (supra). Accordingly, compensation granted by
the Tribunal under the head of „loss of company, love & affection‟ is
disallowed. The "funeral expenses" are reduced from `25,000/- to
`15,000/-. Similarly, compensation granted under the head "loss of
estate" is also reduced from `75,000/- to `15,000/-.
8. In light of the aforesaid, the compensation payable to respondents-
claimants is reassessed as under:-
S.No. Description Amount
1. Loss of Dependency `5,97,700/-
3. Funeral Expenses `15,000/-
4. Loss of Estate `15,000/-
Total `6,27,700/-
9. Consequentially, the compensation amount payable stands reduced
from `11,33,000/- to `6,27,700/-. So far as interest granted by the
Tribunal is concerned, 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, in the
instant case, interest granted @12% p.a. is reduced to 9% p.a. Thus, it is
directed that the re-assessed compensation shall carry interest @ 9% per
annum. The modified compensation be disbursed in the ratio and manner
as indicated in the impugned Award. Statutory deposit alongwith excess
deposit be refunded to Insurer.
10. With aforesaid directions, this appeal and the application are
accordingly disposed of.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
JULY 16, 2018
r
