Delhi High Court
Icici Lombard Genral Insurance Co ... vs Sahid Ahmed & Ors. on 17 July, 2018
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: July 17, 2018
+ MAC.APP.720/2017 & CM 29082/2017
ICICI LOMBARD GENRAL INSURANCE CO LTD.....Appellant
Through: Mr. Pankaj Gupta, Advocate for
Ms. Suman Bagga, Advocate
Versus
SAHID AHMED & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Anshuman Bal, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
(ORAL)
C.M. 29083/2017 (delay)
There is delay of 123 days in filing the accompanying appeal.
Upon hearing, I find that sufficient cause is shown to condone the
delay occasioned. The application is allowed and the delay stands
condoned.
The application is disposed of.
MAC.APP.720/2017 & CM 29082/2017
1. Impugned Award of 30th November, 2016 grants compensation of
`8,41,205/- with interest @ 10% p.a. to respondents-Claimants on
account of death of one Gordhani aged 74 years in a vehicular accident
on 16th September, 2015.
2. The factual background of this case, as noticed in the impugned
Award, is as under:-
"The present claim petition has been filed by petitioner
under Section 166 and 140 of M.V. Act. The case of the
petitioner is that on 16.09.2015 her deceased wife Smt.
Gordhani has met with an accident caused by respondent no.
1 Jabar Singh while driving motorcycle bearing registration
no. DL-9S-AX-1680 near Hero Honda Showroom, Main
Najafgarh, Chhawla Road, New Delhi and as a result, his
wife was killed."
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 : `4,16,205/-
2.) For Funeral expenses : `25,000/-
3.) Loss of consortium : `1,00,000/-
4.) Loss of estate : `1,00,000/-
5.) Loss of love and affection to children
(1,00,000 X 2) : `2,00,000/-
_________
Total : `8,41,205/-
4. The challenge to impugned Award by learned counsel for
appellant-Insurer is on the ground that insured vehicle was not involved
in the accident in question. Learned counsel for appellant-Insurer further
submits that compensation granted under the "non-pecuniary heads"
ought to be suitably reduced in light of Supreme Court's Constitution
Bench decision in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi &
ors. (2017) 16 SCC 680.
5. On the contrary, learned counsel for respondent-Claimants
supports the impugned Award and submits that the compensation granted
by the Tribunal 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 and the evidence
on record, I find that the eye-witness Asha in her evidence has
categorically stated as to how this accident took place. As per Detailed
Accident Report (DAR) on record, statement of Asha was recorded by the
police wherein she had narrated as to how the accident had taken place. In
view of the evidence of Asha and site plan of the spot/place of accident
on record, I find that the Tribunal has rightly concluded that the accident
had taken place due to negligence of driver of the insured vehicle.
7. As regards the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the
head of „loss of dependency‟, I find that the income of the deceased has
been assessed on minimum wages of an unskilled person. Supreme Court
in Jitendra Khimshankar & Ors. Vs. Kasam Daud Kumbhar & Ors.
(2015) 4 SCC 237, while dealing with an accident which had occurred in
the year 1990, had taken the notional income of the housewife to be
`3,000/- p.m. The minimum wages then were around Rs. 1,000/- p.m..
In view thereof, I find that the basis to assess the income of the deceased
is valid. However, in view of decision of Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi
(supra), addition towards „future prospects‟ made by the Tribunal is
unjustified and hence, disallowed. In view of Supreme Court's decision
in Pranay Sethi (Supra), compensation granted by the Tribunal under the
head of „love and affection‟ is also disallowed. The deduction of
„personal expenses‟ of the deceased ought to be 50% and not 1/3rd as
assessed by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the „loss of dependency‟ is
reassessed as under:-
` 9,048/- X 12 X 5 X 50/100 = ` 2,71,440/-
8. In light of the aforesaid, the compensation payable to respondents-
Claimants is reassessed as under:-
S.No. Description Amount
1. Loss of Dependency `2,71,440/-
2. Loss of Consortium `40,000/-
3. Funeral Expenses `15,000/-
4. Loss of Estate `15,000/-
Total `3,41,440/-
Resultantly, the compensation amount payable stands reduced from
`8,41,205/- to `3,41,440/-. 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. The payable
compensation be disbursed in the ratio and manner, as indicated in the
impugned Award. Statutory deposit and the excess deposit be refunded to
appellant-Insurer.
9. With aforesaid directions, this appeal and the application are
disposed of.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
JULY 17, 2018
v
