Delhi High Court
Sandeep Khatri And Ors. vs Oriental Insurance Co Ltd And Ors. on 5 September, 2018
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: September 05, 2018
+ MAC.APP. 285/2013
SANDEEP KHATRI AND ORS. ..... Appellants
Through: Mr. Anshuman Bal, Advocate
Versus
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Amit Gaur, Advocate for
Mr. Pradeep Gaur, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
(ORAL)
1. Impugned Award of 27th November,2012 grants compensation of
`11,50,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a. to appellants-Claimants on account
of death of one Jyoti, wife of Sandeep, aged 28 years, who was working
as Receptionist in Web Net Infotech Computer Institute, in a vehicular
accident on 31st March, 2010.
2. The factual background of this case, as noticed in the impugned
Award, is as under:-
"Petitioner No.1 being the husband and petitioner
No.2 being the minor daughter of the deceased who was aged
about 28 years have filed the present claim petition claiming
therein a compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- with interest @
18% p.a. on the ground that on 31.3.2010 at about 9.00 PM
the deceased was going on motorcycle alongwith her
husband Sandeep/ petitioner No.1, son Abhinav, and
daughter Vanshika/petitioner No.2. When they reached Palla
More Red Light Near Pulya GTK Road, Alipur a truck
bearing No. HR 55F-4550 came from behind at a high speed
driven most rashly and negligently and hit the motorcycle.
Due to the said impact all the occupants of the motorcycle
fell down on the road and the wheel of the truck ran over
Abhinav who died at the spot whereas other persons were
seriously injured in the accident. Other persons were
removed to Satyawadi Raja Harish Chander Hospital where
Jyoti died due to the injuries received in the accident and
petitioner No.1 and 2 were referred to St. Stephen Hospital.
A criminal case FIR No.93/10, U/s.279/337/304A IPC was
registered at PS Alipur, Delhi."
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 : `10,20,000/-
2.) Funeral charges : `10,000/-
3.) Loss of Estate : `10,000/-
4.) Loss of Consortium : `10,000/-
5.) Loss of love, company and affection etc.: `1,00,000/-
_________
`11,50,000/-
4. Learned counsel for appellants submits that quantum of
compensation granted by the Tribunal is inadequate and seeks
enhancement of compensation on the ground that deceased was holding
diploma in Herbal Beauty and was earning `4,500/- per month while
working on weekends and the said income has not been taken into
consideration by the Tribunal. So, it is submitted by appellants' counsel
that "loss of dependency" has to be reassessed and the compensation
granted ought to be suitably enhanced.
5. On the contrary, counsel for respondent-Insurer supports the
impugned Award and submits that no case for enhancement of
compensation is made out. It is submitted that there is no documentary
evidence on record to support the claim that the deceased was working on
weekends in a beauty parlor. It is submitted that compensation granted
under the non-pecuniary heads ought to be suitably reduced in light of
Supreme Court's Constitution Bench decision in National Insurance
Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & ors. (2017) 16 SCC 680.
6. Upon hearing and on perusal of impugned Award, evidence on
record and decision cited, I find that there is no documentary evidence on
record regarding earning of deceased on weekends in a beauty parlor and
so, the Tribunal has rightly not granted compensation. However, there is a
diploma certificate of the deceased on record, which reveals that deceased
was a skilled worker. In the facts and circumstances of this case, it is
deemed appropriate to take the minimum wages of a skilled worker to
assess the income of deceased. The minimum wages payable to a skilled
workman were `6,448/- per month at the relevant time. The Tribunal has
made addition of 30% towards "future prospects", whereas in view of
Supreme Court's Constitution Bench decision in Pranay Sethi (Supra),
addition of 40% towards "future prospects" has to be made. However,
the Tribunal has rightly made deduction of 1/3 rd towards "personal
expenses" and applied multiplier of 17. In the light of above, the "loss of
dependency" is reassessed as under:-
`6,448/- X 12 X 2/3 X 140/100 X 17 = `12,27,699.2/-
(rounded of to `12,27,700/-)
7. The compensation granted 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 by the
Tribunal under the head of „loss of love & affection.‟ is disallowed.
However, "funeral expenses" are increased from `10,000/- to `15,000/-.
Similarly, compensation granted under the head "loss of estate" is also
increased from `10,000/- to `15,000/- and 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 appellants-
Claimants is reassessed as under:-
S.No. Description Amount
1. Loss of Dependency `12,27,700/-
2. Funeral Expenses `15,000/-
3. Loss of estate `15,000/-
4. Loss of consortium `40,000/-
Total `12,97,700/-
9. In the light of aforesaid, total compensation payable to appellants-
Claimants is enhanced from `11,50,000/- to `12,97,700/-. The re-
assessed compensation shall carry interest @ 9% per annum. The
enhanced compensation be deposited by respondent-Insurer with the
Registrar General of this Court within six weeks and it be released to
appellants/Claimants, in the manner, already indicated in the impugned
Award.
10. While modifying the impugned Award in aforesaid terms, this
appeal stands accordingly disposed of.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
SEPTEMBER 05, 2018
r
