Delhi High Court
Munesh Arya & Ors. vs Hamid & Anr (Shriram General ... on 20 July, 2018
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: July 20, 2018
+ MAC.APP. 624/2016
SHRI RAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD. ... Appellant
Through: Ms. Smriti Relan, Advocate for
Mr. Sameer Nandwani, Advocate
Versus
MUNESH ARYA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Kunwarpal Singh, Advocate
+ MAC.APP. 544/2016
MUNESH ARYA & ORS. ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Kunwarpal Singh, Advocate
Versus
HAMID & ANR (SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD)
..... Respondent
Through: Ms. Smriti Relan, Advocate for
Mr. Sameer Nandwani, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
(ORAL)
C.M. 29035/2016 in MAC.APP. 624/2016
There is delay of 30 days in filing the accompanying appeal.
MAC.APP. 544/2016
Upon hearing, in the application, it is allowed and delay is
condoned.
Application is disposed of.
MAC.APP. 624/2016 & C.M. 29033/2016 (for stay)
MAC.APP. 544/2016
1. Impugned Award of 29th March, 2016 grants compensation of
`12,44,860/- with interest @ 12% per annum to the Claimants on account
of death of one- Rakesh Kumar Arya, aged around 48 years, who died in a
vehicular accident which took place on 12th February, 2014.
2. In the above captioned first appeal, Insurer seeks reduction in the
compensation awarded, whereas in the above captioned second appeal,
enhancement of compensation is sought by Claimants. Since both the
appeals arise out of common impugned Award, therefore, with the
consent of learned counsel for the parties, both the appeals have been
heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.
3. The factual background of this case, as noticed in the impugned
Award, is as under:-
"On 12.02.2014, at 12.40 a.m deceased Rakesh Kumar
Arya was coming back to his house after duty from Mile Stone
2000 Restaurants and Banquets, Raj Nagar, Ghaziabad on
scooter and reached at Crossing, Mohan Nagar, Ghaziabad
where a truck bearing registration no. HR-74-6692 came in a
high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and hit against
the scooter as a result both of the occupants of scooter
sustained multiple crush injuries and succumbed to the injuries.
He was removed to General Hospital, Bulandshahar where he
was declared brought dead. The post-mortem on the body of
MAC.APP. 544/2016
the deceased was conducted. FIR no. 164/14 PS, Sahibabd, U.P
was registered against respondent no. 1. The accident has
taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent
no. 1. The vehicle is insured with respondent no. 2."
4. 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:-
S.No. Name of heads Amount
1. Loss of dependency/ contribution `7,69,860/-
to the family
2. Loss of consortium `1,00,000/-
3. Loss of love and affection `2,50,000/-
4. Loss of estate `1,00,000/-
5. Funeral and transportation `25,000/-
expenses
Total `12, 44,860/-
5. The challenge to the impugned Award by counsel for Insurer is on
the ground that grant of compensation of `2,50,000/- under the head of
"loss of love and affection" awarded by the Tribunal is to be disallowed
in view of Supreme Court's Constitution Bench decision in National
Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & ors. (2017) 16 SCC 680.
Counsel for Insurer further submits that compensation granted under the
non-pecuniary heads ought to be suitably reduced in terms of Supreme
Court's decision in Pranay Sethi (Supra).
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for Claimants submits that the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal is wholly inadequate, as the
MAC.APP. 544/2016
Tribunal has erred in assessing income of deceased on minimum wages
of a skilled workman. It is pointed out that in view of Experience
Certificate (Ex. PW-1/11) issued by Hotel Kanishka, judicial notice can
be taken note of the fact that deceased was earning `10,000/- p.m. It is
further submitted that the Tribunal has erred in not making any addition
towards future prospects while assessing the "loss of dependency". So, it
is submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal needs to be
suitably enhanced.
7. Upon hearing and on perusal of impugned Award, evidence on
record and the decision cited, I find that the Experience Certificate (Ex.
PW1/10) issued by Hotel Softel Surya, which has been placed on record
by widow of deceased, shows that the deceased had worked in the said
hotel in the Service Department in Grade-I and had taken voluntary
retirement in December, 2002. As per evidence of widow of deceased,
before his death, the deceased was working in a restaurant named-
Milestone 2000 but unfortunately, no documentary proof regarding
employment of deceased in the said restaurant is on record. A perusal of
record reveals that during the course of evidence, notice was issued to
Ravneet Singh, owner of restaurant- Milestone 2000 and as per Tribunal's
order of 16th November, 2015, notice sent was received back unserved
with the report that he is not doing any business at the given address.
Considering the Experience Certificate (Ex. PW1/10) issued by Hotel
Softel Surya and Experience Certificate (Ex. PW1/11) issued by Hotel
Kanishka, judicial notice can be taken of the fact that a person with
similar qualification as that of deceased, would have earned atleast
MAC.APP. 544/2016
`10,000/- per month. Thus, the Tribunal has erred in assessing the "loss
of dependency" while taking the income of deceased on minimum wages.
8. As regards addition towards "future prospects", I find that
deceased was aged about 48 years on the date of accident and so, in view
of Supreme Court's decision in Pranay Sethi (Supra), addition of 25%
towards "future prospects" is to be made. Accordingly. "loss of
dependency" is re-calculated as under:-
`10,000/- p.m. X 12 X 13 X 125/100 X 3/4 = `14,62,500/-
9. So far as compensation granted under the „non pecuniary heads‟ is
concerned, it needs to be brought in tune Supreme Court's decision in
Pranay Sethi (supra). Accordingly, compensation granted by the Tribunal
under the head of „loss of 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 reduced from
`1,00,000/- to `15,000/- and compensation granted under the head "loss
of consortium" is also reduced from `1,00,000/- to `40,000/-.
10. In light of the aforesaid, the compensation payable to respondents-
claimants is reassessed as under:-
S.No. Name of heads Amount
1. Loss of dependency `14,62,500/-
2. Loss of consortium `40,000/-
4. Loss of estate `15,000/-
5. Funeral expenses `15,000/-
Total `15,32,500/-
MAC.APP. 544/2016
11. Consequentially, the compensation amount payable stands
enhanced from `12,44,860 to `15,32,500/-. 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 re-assessed
compensation shall carry interest @ 9% per annum and not 12% as
awarded by the Tribunal. The enhanced compensation with interest be
deposited by Insurer with the Registrar General of this Court within four
weeks from today. The awarded compensation be disbursed in the ratio
and manner as indicated in the impugned Award. Statutory deposit be
refunded to Insurer.
12. While modifying the impugned Award in aforesaid terms, the
above captioned two appeals and application are accordingly disposed of.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
JULY 20, 2018
r
MAC.APP. 544/2016
