Delhi High Court
National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Mahendra Singh & Ors. on 18 July, 2018
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: July 18, 2018
+ MAC.APP. 242/2013
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. .....Appellant
Through: Ms. Shantha Devi Raman &
Mr. Arihant Jain, Advocates
Versus
MAHENDRA SINGH & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Pnkaj Singh Thakur, Advocate
for Mr. Navneet Goyal, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
(ORAL)
1. Impugned Award of 13th December, 2012 grants compensation of
`13,60,026/- with penal interest @ 12% p.a. to respondents-claimants on
account of death of one Anar Devi, aged 46 years in a vehicular accident
on 20th January, 2012.
2. The factual background of this case, as noticed in the impugned
Award, is as under:-
"LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES (husband and children)
of Smt.Anar Devi (since deceased) have claimed
compensation to the tune of Rs.25,00,000/- with the
averments that on 20/01/2012 at about 06:15 P.M. Smt. Anar
Devi (since deceased) alongwith her collegue Smt. Usha Devi
was coming to her house from her duty place (i.e. Jhilmil
Industrial Area) on foot via Sunder Nagari. As alleged, when
she reached near Bus Stand of Bus route no.280, Mata
Mandir, Sunder Nagari, Delhi, in the meanwhile a
motorcycle bearing no. DL7SAX 8799 (Hero Honda
Splendor- Black Colour), which was being driven by its
driver/ respondent no.1 at a very high speed, rashly,
negligently in a zag manner, without taking necessary
precautions, without proper lookouts, violating the traffic
rules and without any horn, came from back side and hit Smt.
Anar Devi (since deceased) with great force. Consequently,
Smt. Anar Devi fell down on the road and sustained grievous
injuries all over body. She was immediately taken to GTB
Hospital, Delhi by Smt. Usha Devi where she died during the
course of her treatment and her postmortem was conducted
at mortuary of GTB Hospital, Delhi. FIR No.26/2012 u/s.
279/337/304A IPC stands registered at P.S. Nand Nagri
regarding this accident"
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 : `13,20,025.20/-
2.) Loss of Love and affection : ` 25,000/-
3.) Funeral expenses : ` 5,000/-
4.) Loss of Consortium : ` 10,000/-
_________
Total : `13,60,025.20/-
(rounded off to `13,60,026/-)
4. The challenge to impugned Award by learned counsel for
appellant-Insurer is on the ground that the "loss of dependency" has been
erroneously calculated by the Tribunal while taking the minimum wages
payable to a matriculate and by giving increase of 15%. Reliance is
placed upon Supreme Court's decision in Jitendra Khimshankar Trivedi
& ors. Vs. Kasam Daud Kumbhar & ors. (2015) 4 SCC 237 and
Laxmidhar Nayak & ors. Vs. Jugal Kishore Behera & ors. (2018) 1 SCC
746 to submit that in case of a housewife, notional income of `3,000/-
p.m. is to be taken and no increase or addition is to be made. Counsel for
appellant-Insurer further submits that the Tribunal has erred in not
deducting 1/3rd towards "personal expenses" and so, "loss of
dependency" needs to be recalculated.
5. On the contrary, learned counsel for respondent-Claimants
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 Supreme Court in Jitendra
Khimshankar Trivedi (supra) and Laxmidhar Nayak (supra), has declared
in no uncertain terms that in a case of housewife, notional income of
`3,000/- p.m. is to be taken and no addition or increase towards "future
prospects" is to be made. Since there are four dependants, the deduction
of 1/4th ought to be made towards "personal expenses". In the light of
aforesaid, "loss of dependency" is reassessed as under:-
`3,000/- p.m. X 12 X 13 X 3/4 = `3,51,000/-
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 National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi &
Ors. (2017) 16 SCC 680. Accordingly, compensation granted by the
Tribunal under the head of „loss of love & affection‟ is disallowed.
However, "funeral expenses" are increased from `5,000/- to `15,000/-
and Claimants are granted compensation of `15,000/- under the head
"loss of estate". Compensation granted under the head "loss of
consortium" is also increased from `10,000/- to `40,000/-.
8. In light of the aforesaid, the compensation payable to respondents-
claimants is reassessed as under:-
S.No. Description Amount
1. Loss of Dependency `3,51,000/-
2. Loss of Consortium `40,000/-
3. Funeral Expenses `15,000/-
4. Loss of Estate `15,000/-
Total `4,21,000/-
In the light of aforesaid, total compensation payable to appellants is
reduced from `13,60,026/- to `4,21,000/-. As 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, it is directed that the modified compensation shall
carry interest @ 9% per annum. Compensation awarded be released
forthwith to respondents-Claimants in the manner and ratio as indicated
in the impugned Award. Statutory deposit alongwith excess deposit, be
refunded to appellant-Insurer.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
JULY 18, 2018
r
