Delhi High Court
Tata Aig General Insurance Co. Ltd vs Dharambir Singh & Ors on 18 July, 2018
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: July 18, 2018
+ MAC.APP. 543/2017 & C.M. Nos. 23290/2017 & 42416/2017
TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Rudra Kahlor, Advocate
Versus
DHARAMBIR SINGH & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Pankaj Kr. Deval, Advocate
+ MAC.APP. 550/2017 & C.M. No. 23444/2017
TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Rudra Kahlor, Advocate
Versus
PRIYANKA & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Pankaj Kr. Deval, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
(ORAL)
1. The above captioned two appeals are directed against impugned
Award of 27th March, 2017. In the above captioned first appeal, the
challenge is to the impugned Award vide which compensation of
₹13,68,792/-with interest @ 9% p.a. has been granted to respondent-
Claimants on account of death of one Sheela Devi, aged 49 years in a
vehicular accident on 20th June, 2015. In the above captioned second
appeal, the challenge is to the impugned Award vide which compensation
of ₹ 1,40,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a. has been granted to Priyanka aged
24 years who had sustained grievous injuries in this vehicular accident.
With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the above captioned
two appeals have been heard together and are being decided together by
this common judgment.
2. The factual background of this case, as noticed in the impugned
Award, is as under:-
"It is stated in both the claim petitions that on
20.06.2015, at about 7:30 am, one Smt. Sheela Devi (since
deceased) and Smt. Priyanka were co-passengers in vehicle
no. HR-30 M-1606 (car Maruti Wagon R) and they were
going from Faridabad via Gurgaon to Kalanaur, Bhiwani.
The said car was being driven by respondent no.1 at a very
high speed, rashly, negligently, without giving any horn and
neglecting the traffic rules.
It is further stated that when the offending vehicle
crossed toll plaza Bandhwari, DLF Phase-1, Gurgaon, the
driver of the offending vehicle lost control and the vehicle
overturned, resulting in fatal injuries to Smt. Sheela Devi and
grievous injuries to Smt. Priyanka."
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 by the Tribunal to
legal heirs of deceased-Smt. Sheela Devi is as under:-
1.) Loss of dependency : `11,43,792/-
2.) Loss of love and affection : `1,00,000/-
3.) Funeral expenses : `25,000/-
4.) Loss of Consortium : `1,00,000/-
_________
Total : `13,68,792/-
4. The breakup of compensation awarded by the Tribunal to Injured-
Priyanka is as under:-
Head of Compensation Amount(in Rs.)
Pain & Suffering ` 40,000/-
Attendant Charges ` 30,000/-
Medical Expenses ` 19,000/-
Special Diet ` 10,000/-
Conveyance ` 10,000/-
Mental shock ` 5,000/-
Total ` 1,40,000/-
5. Challenge to the impugned Award by learned counsel for the
Appellant-Insurer is on the ground that negligence of the driver of the
insured vehicle is not proved. It is pointed out that no FIR regarding this
vehicular accident was registered. It is submitted that as per DD Entry
registered at concerned police station in Gurgaon, the accident in question
was not due to fault of driver of the insured vehicle. It is next submitted
by learned counsel for Insurer that the legal heirs of deceased were not
dependent upon him and so, no compensation under the head of 'loss of
dependency' is payable to them. Alternatively, Insurer's counsel submits
that the accident in question had taken place in Haryana and so the
minimum wages applicable in Haryana ought to have been the basis to
assess the loss of income. Insurer's counsel submits that
Claimants/Injured had contributed to the happening of this accident as
they had not protested against rash and negligent driving of driver of the
insured vehicle. So, it is submitted that compensation awarded to the
Claimants and the Injured deserves to be accordingly modified.
6. On the contrary, learned counsel for Claimants and the Injured
supports the impugned Award and submits that the compensation
awarded is just and fair. So, it is submitted by learned counsel for
respondents that these appeals deserve to be dismissed.
7. Upon hearing and on perusal of impugned Award and the evidence
on record, I find that Injured-Priyanka is an eye-witness of this accident
and she has stated in her evidence in no uncertain terms that the insured
vehicle in question was being driven at a very high speed and negligently.
She has categorically stated in her evidence that insured vehicle had
crossed toll plaza Bandhwari, DLF Phase-1, Gurgaon at a very high speed
and the driver of the insured vehicle had lost control over the vehicle, due
to which the insured vehicle had overturned. It has come in the cross-
examination of Injured-Priyanka that the driver of insured vehicle was
driving the said vehicle rashly since they had left their house. Injured-
Priyanka has not been cross-examined regarding her telling the driver to
drive slowly and so, it cannot be said that the Claimants/Injured had
contributed to the happening of the accident.
8. Even on perusal of the General Diary Report registered regarding
this accident, I find that this accident had occurred because the insured
vehicle was on the slope and on the curve, driver of the insured vehicle
lost balance of the vehicle and so, the insured vehicle had overturned. It
is quite evident from the above that the negligence was of driver of the
insured vehicle, due to which the accident in question took place. Thus,
the Insurer cannot be absolved from the liability to pay compensation.
9. So far as grant of compensation under the head of 'loss of
dependency' is concerned, I find that deceased was a housewife and the
Tribunal has rightly considered her to be a skilled person and has
assessed 'loss of dependency' on the basis of minimum wages payable to
a skilled person because a house wife takes care of the family. I find no
reason to take a different view than the one taken by the Tribunal.
However, assessment of the services rendered by a skilled person has to
be on minimum wages payable in the State of Haryana and not on the
basis of minimum wages payable in Delhi. On the day of the accident,
the minimum wages payable to a skilled person in Haryana were ₹6,202/-
per month. Thus, 'loss of dependency' is re-assessed as under:-
₹6,202/- X 12 X 13 X 2/3 = ₹6,45,008/-
10. In view of Supreme Court's Constitution Bench decision in
National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & ors. (2017) 16
SCC 680, compensation of ₹1,00,000/- under the head of 'loss of love
and affection' is disallowed and the funeral expenses are accordingly
reduced from ₹ 25,000/- to ₹ 15,000/-. Likewise, compensation of
₹1,00,000/- granted under the head of 'loss of consortium' is also reduced
to ₹ 40,000/-. Compensation of ₹ 15,000/- is granted to legal heirs of the
deceased under the head of 'loss of estate'. Thus, compensation payable
to legal heirs of the deceased is re-assessed as under:-
S.No. Description Amount
1. Loss of Dependency `6,45,008 /-
2. Loss of Consortium `40,000/-
3. Funeral Expenses `15,000/-
4. Loss of Estate `15,000/-
Total `7,15,008/-
(rounded off)
`7,15,010/-
11. Resultantly, compensation awarded to legal heirs of the deceased is
reduced from ₹13,68,792/- to ₹7,15,010/-. The modified compensation
shall carry interest @ 9% p.a. and it be released to the Claimants in the
ratio and manner as indicated in the impugned Award.
12. During the course of hearing, it was pointed out by learned counsel
for the parties that the Tribunal has erred in totalling the compensation
awarded to Injured-Priyanka and instead of ₹1,40,000/-, the
compensation awarded to her is ₹1,14,000/-. In the face of evidence on
record, I find that the quantum of compensation awarded to Injured-
Priyanka is reasonable and no case is made out for reducing the quantum
of compensation of ₹1,14,000/- granted to her.
13. Consequentially, the above captioned first appeal is partly allowed
in the aforesaid terms, whereas the above captioned second appeal stands
dismissed being without merit. Compensation awarded to Injured-
Priyanka be released forthwith. Statutory deposit and excess deposit, be
promptly refunded to appellant-Insurer.
14. With aforesaid directions, both these appeals and the applications
are accordingly disposed of.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
JULY 18, 2018
SRwt
