Delhi High Court
National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Lalita Sharma & Ors on 10 October, 2019
KAMLESH KUMAR
04.11.2019 16:15
$~13
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Decided on: 10.10.2019
+ MAC.APP. 979/2015 & CM APPL. 31031/2015
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. C.S. Parashar, Advocate.
versus
LALITA SHARMA & ORS ...... Respondents
Through: Mr. Rajkumar Mittal, Advocate for R-
1 to R-4.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI
NAJMI WAZIRI, J. (Oral)
1. The award of compensation dated 18.09.2015 passed by the learned
MACT in Case No. 804/14 has been impugned on the ground that the
offending vehicle involved in the motor-vehicular accident, was never
identified. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that even the
police officer, who had purportedly seized the vehicle, had not identified or
mentioned the number of the vehicle in his deposition and the chargesheet
too was not filed.
2. The aforesaid argument is untenable as it is contrary to the records.
Head Constable Vishambhar Das had stated that he had witnessed the
accident from a distance of merely 10 to 20 metre. He had instructed his
colleague Constable Mukesh, who was patrolling alongwith him near
Kashmere Gate, Delhi to chase the offending truck. The latter did so and
apprehended it after pursuing it for some distance. In his cross-examination,
Head Constable Vishambhar Das (PW-3) had deposed that although he did
not remember the number of the truck, he had mentioned the same in the
FIR. The number of the vehicle mentioned in the FIR is of the insured
vehicle, therefore, there is clearly no doubt about the identity of the
offending vehicle. Furthermore, Constable Mukesh, PW-4, had also
deposed along similar lines in corroboration of the statement of his Senior,
Head Constable Vishambhar Das, that they both had witnessed the accident
from close quarters and that he had been instructed by PW-3 to follow the
vehicle involving the accident which he followed alongwith the HC and
caught the driver at HDFC Bank Pul Defrin.
3. Interestingly, neither PW-3 nor PW-4 were cross-examined by the
appellant insurance company. The said witnesses had nevertheless denied
the suggestion that the truck was stationary in the parking area or that it was
not involved in the accident. The identity of the offending truck stands
verified.
4. The next contention is that the age of the deceased being 55 years, the
applicable multiplier would be nine instead of eleven. The said contention is
rejected because the multiplier of 11 was rightly applied as per dicta of
Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16
SCC 680. The lesser multiplier would be applicable only if he had attained
56 years.
5. The other arguments are that deductions ought to have been made of
the "ration money" and "transport allowance". The Court is of the view that
both these allowances could be used by the family as well and were not
specific or exclusive for the workplace. Therefore, the dependency of the
family would extend to the "ration money" and the "transport allowance".
6. The Court would note that in terms of dicta of the Supreme Court in
Pranay Sethi (supra), the deceased being 55 years of age, the claimants
would be entitled to compensation towards „loss of future prospects‟ @
15%. It is so granted.
7. A lumpsum amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- has been granted towards „loss
of consortium‟ and Rs. 25,000/- each has been granted towards „funeral
expenses‟ and „loss of love and affection‟ and Rs. 10,000/- has been granted
towards „loss of estate‟. However, in terms of Pranay Sethi (supra), the
amount payable towards „funeral expenses‟ and „loss of estate‟ shall be Rs.
15,000/- under each head. It is so granted. Furthermore, in terms of the
dicta of the Supreme Court in Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs.
Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors., 2018 SCC OnLine SC 1546, each of
the claimants would be entitled to Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 40,000/- towards
„loss of love and affection‟ and „loss of consortium‟ respectively. It is so
granted to them.
8. The amount payable to the beneficiary(ies) of the award shall be as
under:
S.No. Particulars Amount
1. Loss of Dependency [Rs.60,165/- Rs. 60,88,089/-
(income) x 12 (months) x 11 (multiplier)
x 66.66/100 (1/3rd deduction towards
personal expenses) x 115/100 (15% loss
of future prospects)]
2. Loss of love & affection [Rs. 50,000/- x Rs. 2,00,000/-
4 (claimants)]
3. Loss of Consortium [ Rs.40,000/- x 4 Rs. 1,60,000/-
(claimants)]
4. Funeral Expenses Rs. 15,000/-
5. Loss of Estate Rs. 15,000/-
TOTAL Rs. 64,78,089/-
9. Let the aforesaid amounts, alongwith interest @ 9% from the date of
filing of the claim petition 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 beneficiary(ies) of the Award in terms of the scheme of
disbursement specified therein.
10. The case has been listed fourteen times over in which the respondents
have appeared thirteen times, therefore, the statutory amount, alongwith
interest accrued thereon, shall be given to the claimants as cost of this
proceeding.
11. The appeal is dismissed accordingly.
NAJMI WAZIRI, J
OCTOBER 10, 2019/AB
