Delhi High Court
National Insurance Co Ltd vs Jyoti & Ors. on 17 July, 2018
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: July 17, 2018
+ MAC.APP. 1058/2016 & CM 46171/2016
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD .....Appellant
Through: Ms. Rakhi Dubey, Advocate
Versus
JYOTI & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Anupam Yashovardhan,
Advocate for respondents No. 1-3
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
(ORAL)
1. Impugned Award of 20th October, 2016 grants compensation of
`29,95,882/- with interest @ 10% p.a. to respondents-claimants on
account of death of one Manish, aged 25 years in a vehicular accident on
12th September, 2014.
2. The factual background of this case, as noticed in the impugned
Award, is as under:-
"In the present claim petition U/Sec. 166 & 140 M.V.
Act, the case of Petitioner is that on 12.09.2014, deceased
Manish was going with his friend on motorcycle and at
Jhajjar Bye-pass they were hit by Car bearing No. DL-8CY-
0041 driven by Respondent No. 1/Sonu in rash and negligent
manner and as a result of the same Sh. Manish 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 : `25,20,882/-
2.) Loss of love and affection to children : `2,00,000/-
3.) Loss of consortium : `1,00,000/-
4.) For Funeral expenses : `25,000/-
5.) Loss of estate : `1,00,000/-
6.) Loss of Love and affection towards
Parent : `50,000/-
_________
Total : `29,95,882/-
4. The challenge to impugned Award by learned counsel for
appellant-Insurer is on the ground that addition of 50% towards „future
prospects‟ granted by the Tribunal is unjustified. Learned counsel for
Insurer submits that compensation granted under the "non-pecuniary
heads" is on the higher side and in light of Supreme Court's Constitution
Bench decision in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi &
ors. (2017) 16 SCC 680, it needs to be suitably reduced and the rate of
interest ought to be 9% and not 10% as awarded by the Tribunal.
5. On the contrary, learned counsel for Claimants supports the
impugned Award and submits that the compensation awarded is just and
fair and so, this appeal deserves to be dismissed.
6. Upon hearing and on perusal of impugned Award and the evidence
on record, I find that Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased on
minimum wages payable to a matriculate and has added 50% towards
„future prospects‟. In view of Supreme Court's decision in Pranay Sethi
(Supra), I find that the addition towards 'future prospects' has to be 40%
and not 50%. Accordingly, the „loss of dependency‟ is re-assessed as
under:
` 10,374/- X 12 X 18 X 140/100 X 3/4 = ` 23,52,823/-
7. As regards compensation granted under the „non pecuniary heads‟,
it needs to be brought in tune with Constitution Bench decision of
Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi (supra). Accordingly, compensation
granted by the Tribunal under the head of „loss of love & affection‟ is
disallowed and compensation under the „loss of consortium‟ is reduced
from `1,00,000/- to `40,000/-, 'funeral expenses‟ are also reduced from
`25,000/- to `15,000/- and the compensation under the head of 'loss of
estate‟ also stands reduced from `1,00,000/- to `15,000/- .
8. In light of the aforesaid, the compensation payable to Claimants is
reassessed as under:-
S.No. Description Amount
1. Loss of Dependency `23,52,823/-
2. Loss of Consortium `40,000/-
3. Funeral Expenses `15,000/-
4. Loss of Estate `15,000/-
Total `24,22,823/-
9. Consequentially, the compensation amount payable to respondent-
Claimants stands reduced from `29,95,882/- to `24,22,823/-. The
modified compensation be released forthwith to Claimants in ratio and
manner as indicated in the impugned Award. Statutory deposit along with
excess deposit be refunded to Insurer.
10. With aforesaid directions, this appeal and the application are
disposed of.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
JULY 17, 2018
v
