Delhi High Court
Oriental Insurance Company vs Meena Devi And Ors. on 5 September, 2018
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: September 05, 2018
+ MAC.APP. 338/2013
ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Amit Gaur, Advocate for
Mr.Pradeep Gaur, Advocate
Versus
MEENA DEVI AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Anshuman Bal, Advocate
+ MAC.APP. 904/2014
MEENA DEVI AND ORS. ..... Appellants
Through: Mr. Anshuman Bal,
Advocate
Versus
ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Amit Gaur, Advocate for
Mr.Pradeep Gaur, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
(ORAL)
1. The above captioned two appeals are directed against Award of 21st
January, 2013 vide which compensation of `7,02,773/- with interest @
9% per annum has been awarded to Claimants. In the above captioned
first appeal, Oriental Insurance Company Limited (hereinafter referred to
MAC.APP. 904/2014
as Insurer) seeks reduction of quantum of compensation granted, whereas
in the above captioned second appeal, enhancement of compensation is
sought by Claimants. Since these two appeals arise out of common
Award of 21st January, 2013, therefore, both these appeals have been
heard together and are being decided by this common judgment. The
facts as noted in opening paragraphs of the impugned Award are as
under:-
"On the unfortunate day of 23.8.2010 at about 9.30 PM,
the deceased alongwith Raju Jha were crossing the road
at GTK Road, Opp. R.G. Farm House, Road towards
Delhi near Budhpur, Delhi when a truck bearing No. HP
34B 5152 came from the side of Karnal at a high speed
driven most rashly and negligently and hit the deceased
as a result of which deceased died at the spot due to the
injuries received in the accident. The accident caused to
the rash and negligent driving by the driver/ respondent
No.1 of the offending truck. The FIR was registered in
respect of this accident vide FIR No. 287/10 at PS Alipur
U/s 279/304A IPC."
2. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as
„the Tribunal‟) has relied upon the evidence of Meena (PW-1), wife of
Lal Babu, who had died in a vehicular accident on 23rd August, 2010.
The Tribunal has also relied upon the evidence of eye witness-Raju Jha
(PW-2) and the other evidence on record to award the compensation as
noted hereinabove. Deceased Lal Babu, aged 57 years on the day of this
vehicular accident, was working as a Contractor and the Tribunal has
assessed his income on the basis of minimum wages of an unskilled
MAC.APP. 904/2014
labourer and has calculated "loss of dependency" by adding 30% towards
"future prospects" and since deceased was married, 1/4th towards
"personal expenses" of deceased has been deducted and by applying
multiplier of 9, "loss of dependency" has been assessed at `5,55,773/-.
The breakup of compensation awarded to legal heirs of deceased by the
Tribunal is as under:-
1) Loss of dependency : `5,55,773/-
2) Funeral expenses : `7,000/-
3) Loss of Estate : `10,000/-
4) Loss of Consortium : `10,000/-
5) Loss of love, company and affection : `1,00,000/-
6) Loss of gratuitous services : `20,000/-
`7,02,773/-
3. The challenge to the impugned award by learned counsel for
Insurer is on the ground that the Tribunal has erred in adding 30%
towards "future prospects", whereas addition of 10% towards "future
prospects" ought to have been made. It is submitted by counsel for
Insurer that wife of deceased alone was dependent upon him and so,
deduction of 1/2 towards "personal expenses" of deceased ought to be
made. To seek reduction of the compensation under the non-pecuniary
heads, reliance is placed upon Supreme Court's Constitution Bench
decision in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors.
(2017) 16 SCC 680. Thus, reduction in quantum of compensation
granted is sought by counsel for Insurer.
4. On the contrary, learned counsel for the Claimants refutes the
aforesaid stand taken on behalf of Insurer and submits that as per ration
card (Ex.PW1/5), age of deceased was 47 years on the day of accident. As
MAC.APP. 904/2014
per post mortem report, age of deceased was 50 years on the day of this
accident. So, it is submitted that applicable multiplier is of 13. It is also
submitted that in view of Supreme Court's Constitution Bench decision in
Pranay Sethi (Supra), addition of 25% towards "future prospects" ought
to be made. It is next submitted that deduction of 1/4th towards "personal
expenses" has been rightly made by the Tribunal, as both sons, widow
and mother of deceased were dependent upon him. Lastly, it is submitted
that quantum of compensation granted to the Claimants ought to be
enhanced.
5. Upon hearing and on perusal of impugned award, evidence on
record and the decision cited, I find that as per copy of ration card (Ex.
PW1/5), the deceased was born in the year 1963 and so, on the day of
accident, he was aged 47 years. Since the ration card (Ex. PW1/5) was
made prior to the Voter's Identity Card, therefore, it ought to be relied
upon. In view of Supreme Court's decision in Pranay Sethi (Supra),
addition of 25% towards "future prospects" ought to be made. It has
come in the evidence that both the sons of deceased were dependent
upon him and apart from them, his wife and mother of deceased were also
dependent upon him and so, deduction of 1/4 th towards personal expenses
of deceased has been rightly made by the Tribunal.
6. The income of deceased has been calculated by the Tribunal on
minimum wages payable to an unskilled labourer. The deceased was a
Contractor and by no stretch of imagination, he can be put at par with an
unskilled labourer. So, income of deceased is assessed on minimum
wages payable to a skilled person. At the relevant time, the minimum
MAC.APP. 904/2014
wages payable to a skilled workman were `6,448/- per month. The age of
deceased was 47 years on the day of accident and so, multiplier of 13 has
to be applied. Thus, the "loss of dependency" is re-assessed as under:-
`6,448/- X 12 X 13 X 125/100 X 3/4 = `9,43,020/-
7. The compensation granted by Tribunal under the non-pecuniary
heads need to be brought in tune with the Supreme Court's Constitution
Bench decision in Pranay Sethi (supra). Accordingly, the compensation
of `1,00,000/- granted by the Tribunal under the head of "loss of love,
company and affection etc." is disallowed. Similarly, compensation of
`20,000/- granted under the head "loss of gratuitous services" is also
disallowed. However, "funeral expenses" are increased from ₹7,000/- to
`15,000/- and compensation granted under the head "loss of estate" is
also increased from `10,000/- to `15,000/-. 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 legal heirs of
deceased is reassessed as under:-
1. Loss of dependency `9,43,020/-
2. Funeral expenses `15,000/-
3. Loss of estate `15,000/-
4. Loss of consortium `40,000/-
Total `10,13,020/-
Less (interim compensation `50,000/-
awarded vide order dated 20th ₹9,63,020/-
May, 2011)
9. In light of the aforesaid, compensation of `7,02,773/- granted by
MAC.APP. 904/2014
the Tribunal, is enhanced to ₹9,63,020/-which shall carry interest @ 9%
per annum. The mode of disbursement of the compensation shall be as
per the impugned Award. The compensation be released to the Claimants
in terms of this judgment, but in the same manner as indicated by the
Tribunal in the impugned Award.
10. With aforesaid directions, both the appeals are accordingly
disposed of.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
SEPTEMBER 05, 2018
r
MAC.APP. 904/2014
