Delhi High Court
The New India Assurance Company ... vs Munesh Devi And Ors. on 4 October, 2018
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: October 04, 2018
+ MAC.APP. 1109/2017 & C.M. 46361/2017
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
..... Appellant
Through: Ms. Neerja Sachdeva, Advocate
Versus
MUNESH DEVI AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Aruna Mehta, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
(ORAL)
1. Impugned Award of 10th October, 2017 grants compensation of
`22,01,473/- with interest @ 9% p.a. to respondents-claimants on account
of death of a Security Supervisor -Mangal Sain, aged 44 years, in a
vehicular accident on 9th August, 2015.
2. The factual background of this case, as noticed in the impugned
Award, is as under:-
"Present DAR pertains to an accident taking place
on 09.08.2015 at about 8:45 a.m. at Main Wazirabad
Road going towards Ghaziabad in front of Kapoor
Petrol Pump, Gokalpuri within the jurisdiction of PS
Gokulpuri involving TRUCK NO. HR-74-0348, which
was being driven by its driver/ defendant no.1 at a very
fast speed, rashly and negligently and which had hit
SCOOTY No. DL-8S-BB-8872 from its (Scooty‟s)
backside. The driver of the scooty alongwith scooty had
fallen on the road and blood started oozing out of his
head. The complainant Mr. Deepak S/o Premvir rushed
to help the driver of the Scooty but complainant found
him unconscious. The truck driver parked the truck in a
side and came near to the complainant. Other people
also started gathering at the spot and someone made a
call to 100 number. The truck driver, on seeing the
serious condition of driver of the Scooty, swiftly left the
place of accident by leaving the truck at the spot. CAT
Ambulance took the driver of Scooty to GTB Hospital.
Complainant also visited GTB Hospital to know about
the condition of driver of Scooty and came to know that
driver of Scooty had expired. FIR No. 0642/15 was
registered for the offences punishable under Sections
279/304 A IPC. Investigation ended in filing of a
charge-sheet for the offences punishable under sections
279/304-A IPC against defendant no.1."
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 to the claimants is
as under:-
1. Loss of dependency `18,01,472.40
(10,998/- x 130/100 x12 x14 x3/4)
2. Loss of Consortium (Claimant no.1 `1,50,000.00
wife of deceased)
3. Loss of love & affection `1,50,000.00
4. Funeral Expenses `50,000.00
5. Loss of estate `50,000.00
Total `22,01,472.40
Rounded to `22,01,473.00
4. The challenge to impugned Award by learned counsel for The New
India Assurance Company Limited (henceforth referred to as the
"Insurer") is on the ground that the Tribunal has erred in making
addition of 30% towards "future prospects", whereas in view of Supreme
Court's Constitution Bench decision in National Insurance Company Ltd.
Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. (2017) 16 SCC 680, addition towards "future
prospects" ought to be 25%. Reliance is placed upon Supreme Court's
Constitution Bench decision in Pranay Sethi (Supra), to seek reduction of
the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the non-pecuniary
heads.
5. On the contrary, counsel for respondents-Claimants refutes the
aforesaid stand taken by counsel for Insurer and submits that
compensation granted by the Tribunal is just and fair. It is submitted that
this appeal deserves dismissal.
6. Upon hearing and on perusal of impugned Award, evidence on
record and decision cited, I find that from the application form for
employment of deceased, it cannot be made out as to what was his nature
of employment. No employment letter or certificate is on record which
could show whether the deceased was in temporary or permanent
employment. The evidence of Mr. Manish Kaushik (PW-3) has been
scrutinized and thereafter, this Court finds that there is no basis to
conclude that the nature of employment of deceased was of permanent
nature. So, it is concluded that the deceased was having a fixed salary and
in the light of Supreme Court's Constitution Bench decision in Pranay
Sethi (Supra), addition of 25% towards "future prospects" is to be made.
The Tribunal has erred in making addition of 30% towards "future
prospects". Accordingly, "loss of dependency" is re-assessed as under:-
`10,998/- x 12 x 125/100 x 14 x 3/4 = `17,32,185/-
7. The compensation granted by the Tribunal under the „non
pecuniary heads‟ needs to be brought in tune with Supreme Court's
Constitution Bench decision in Pranay Sethi (Supra). Accordingly,
compensation granted to legal heirs of deceased by the Tribunal under the
head of "Loss of Love & affection" is disallowed. The compensation
granted under the head "loss of consortium" is reduced from `1,50,000/-
to `40,000/-. The compensation granted under the head "Loss of estate"
and "funeral expenses" are reduced from `50,000/- to `15,000/- each.
8. Accordingly, the compensation payable to legal heirs of deceased
is re-assessed as under:-
1. Loss of dependency `17,32,185/-
(10,998/- x 125/100 x12 x14 x3/4)
2. Loss of Consortium `40,000.00
3. Loss of estate `15,000.00
4. Funeral Expenses `15,000.00
Total `18,02,185/-
9. In light of the aforesaid, compensation of `22,01,473/- granted by
the Tribunal to legal heirs of deceased- Mangal Sain is reduced to
`18,02,185/-, which shall carry interest @ 9% per annum. The modified
compensation be disbursed to the Claimants in the manner as indicated in
the impugned Award. Excess deposit alongwith statutory deposit be
refunded to Insurer as per rules.
10. With aforesaid directions, this appeal and application are
accordingly disposed of.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
OCTOBER 04, 2018
r
