Delhi High Court
United India Insurance Co Ltd vs Parveen Sharma & Ors on 13 November, 2019
$~8
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Decided on: 13.11.2019
+ MAC.APP. 130/2016
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Pankaj Seth, Advocate.
versus
PARVEEN SHARMA & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Anshuman Bal, Advocate for R-1 to 9.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI
NAJMI WAZIRI, J (Oral)
MAC. APP. 130/2016 & C.M. No.4522/2016 (for stay)
1. This appeal impugns the award of compensation dated 16.11.2015
passed by the learned MACT in MAC Petition No. 30/2013 on the ground
that the quantum of compensation awarded, is erroneous.
2. On 08.02.2016, the appellant had contended that the learned Tribunal
had wrongly assumed the notional income of the deceased as Rs.5,000/- per
month, rather it should have been much lesser. The Court noted that the said
contention was ex facie erroneous because the minimum wages were much
higher at the relevant time, than the income assessed notionally by the
learned Tribunal. In the circumstances, the Regional Manager of the
appellant-insurance company had been called to the Court to explain and
justify the same.
3. On 11.02.2016, the insurer had submitted that the argument urged on
the previous date with regard to the notional income was wrongly made and
MAC.APP.130-2016 Page 1 of 4
that the appeal only impugned the award on i) the quantum of non-pecuniary
compensation awarded towards 'loss of love and affection' and (ii) for
seeking recovery rights against the owner of the offending insured vehicle,
on the ground that the Permit and Fitness Certificate were not produced, in
spite of the appellant's notice under Order 12 Rule 8 of Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 (CPC).
4. Notice has been served upon the parties.
5. The Court would note that each of the claimants have been granted
compensation towards 'loss of love and affection' @ Rs.50,000/-. The same
is justified in view of the dicta of the Supreme Court in Magma General
Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram & Ors.; 2018 SCC
OnLine SC 1546. Additionally, the claimants were also entitled to
compensation of Rs.40,000/- towards 'loss of consortium' in terms of the
same judgment. Therefore, the total compensation payable towards 'loss of
consortium' would be Rs. 3,10,000/- [Rs. 40,000/- x 9 (claimants) less Rs.
50,000/- (already awarded by the impugned order)]. The additional amount
payable under this Head shall be Rs.3,10,000/-.
5. The Court would further note that Rs.50,000/- has been granted
towards 'loss of expectancy of life'. This is an apparent error because when
a person is injured, there is no 'loss of expectancy of life'. Accordingly, the
said amount shall be deducted from the additional payable amount of Rs.
3,10,000/-, and the amount payable would thus be Rs. 2,60,000/-.
6. Apropos the right of recovery, the Court would note that despite
service of notice and direction being given apropos production of requisite
documents, i.e., Permit and Driving Licence, nothing was produced on
record by the respondent, therefore, a presumption would accrue in favour of
MAC.APP.130-2016 Page 2 of 4
the appellant, that the said insured vehicle was being driven in breach of
policy conditions. In the circumstances, the appellant is granted right of
recovery against the owner of the offending-insured vehicle.
7. The appeal is disposed off in the above terms.
8. Since the appellant has partially succeeded in the appeal, let the
statutory amount, alongwith interest accrued thereon, be returned to it.
C.M. No.34074/2017 (cross-objections by R-1 to R-9)
9. Let the cross-objections be registered as a separate MAC. Appeal.
10. Issue notice. Mr. Pankaj Seth, the learned counsel for the insurance
company accepts notice. At joint request, the cross-objection is taken up for
disposal.
11. The appellant-claimants impugn the award of compensation on the
ground that Rs. 5,000/- was taken as notional income to calculate the 'loss of
dependency', which was less than the minimum wages applicable at the
relevant time, i.e. Rs. 7,254/-. The learned counsel for the insurance
company fairly concedes to the same. The same is modified to that extent.
12. The deceased was about 46 years of age at the time of the motor
vehicular accident, therefore, she would be entitled to an addition of 25%
towards 'loss of future prospects' in terms of dicta of the Supreme Court in
National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors.; (2017) 16 SCC 680.
The same is granted. Accordingly, the amount payable towards 'loss of
dependency' shall be Rs. 9,42,077/- [Rs. 7,254/- (minimum wages) x 12
(months) x 13 (multiplier) x 125/100 (loss of future prospects) x 66.6/100
(1/3rd deduction towards personal expenses)].
13. Therefore, the total amount payable by the insurance company shall
MAC.APP.130-2016 Page 3 of 4
be Rs. 12,02,077/- (Rs. 2,60,000/- + Rs. 9,42,077/-). Let, the total awarded
amount, alongwith interest at the same rate and from the same date as
specified in the impugned order till its realization, be deposited before the
learned Tribunal, within three weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this
order, to be released to the beneficiaries of the award in terms of the scheme
of disbursement specified therein.
14. The appeal stands disposed off in the above terms.
NAJMI WAZIRI, J.
NOVEMBER 13, 2019
'AA'
