Delhi High Court
Magma Hdi General Insurance Co Ltd vs Meena Kumari @ Meenu & Ors on 31 August, 2021
$~29
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 31.08.2021
+ MAC.APP. 122/2020
MAGMA HDI GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD...Appellant
versus
MEENA KUMARI @ MEENU & ORS ..... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Appellant: Mr. Ved Vyas Tripathi, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Pratap Singh and Mr. Arun Yadav, Advocates.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
CM. APPL.28779/2021 (for release of amount by R-1)
1. Issue notice. Notice is accepted by learned counsel for the
appellant.
2. Learned counsel for the parties pray that the appeal be taken up
for hearing today.
3. In view of the above, the application is disposed of. The appeal
is taken up for hearing today. The next date of 29.09.2021 is
Signature Not Verified By:JUSTICE SANJEEV
Digitally Signed By:KUNAL SACHDEVA
MAGGU Signing Date:31.08.2021
Signing Date:01.09.2021 07:50:23 22:00
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
cancelled.
MAC.APP. 122/2020
1. Appellant impugns award dated 02.12.2019, whereby claim
petition has been allowed and compensation awarded.
2. The only ground of challenge by the appellant to award is
towards award of sum of Rs.1,50,000/- under the head of 'loss of love
and affection to children and parents of the deceased. There is no
challenge to the factum of the accident, negligence or the quantum
apart from the above.
3. The deceased was coming on his motorcycle from Dhansa
Border village Badli side. A Tata Canter being driven in a rash and
negligent manner by its driver, hit the motorcycle, as a result of
which, the deceased fell down on the road, sustained fatal injuries and
died at the spot.
4. The Tribunal has found the driver of the offending vehicle to be
rash and negligent and accordingly held the driver and owner and
consequently the insurance company liable as the vehicle was
admittedly insured with the appellant insurance company at the time
of the accident.
5. The deceased has left behind a widow, three children and
parents.
Signature Not Verified By:JUSTICE SANJEEV
Digitally Signed By:KUNAL SACHDEVA
MAGGU Signing Date:31.08.2021
Signing Date:01.09.2021 07:50:23 22:00
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
6. The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.8554/-
per month and deducted 1/4th towards personal expenses keeping in
view the number of dependant family members and applied the law
laid down by the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi
Transport Corporation & Anr. (2009) 6 SCC 121.
7. The Tribunal has further applied the principles laid down in
National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC
680 for assessment of compensation.
8. Under the head of 'loss of consortium', a sum of Rs.40,000/-
has been awarded to the wife of the deceased.
9. Insofar as the three children and parents are concerned, they
have been awarded a sum of Rs.30,000/- each under the head of 'loss
of love and affection'.
10. The Tribunal has applied the ratio of the judgment of the
Supreme Court in Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram,
(2018) 18 SCC 130.
11. The judgment in Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra)
has been applied by the Supreme Court in United India Insurance
Company Ltd. Vs. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur 2020 SCC
OnLine SC 410.
12. The Supreme Court in Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd.
Signature Not Verified By:JUSTICE SANJEEV
Digitally Signed By:KUNAL SACHDEVA
MAGGU Signing Date:31.08.2021
Signing Date:01.09.2021 07:50:23 22:00
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
(supra) has held that the word 'consortium' means spousal
consortium, parental consortium and filial consortium and accordingly
held that both parents as well as the children of the deceased would be
entitled to be awarded loss of consortium under the head of 'parental
consortium' and 'filial consortium' respectively.
13. Though in Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd., the Supreme
Court, applying the ratio of the decision in Pranay Sethi (supra),
awarded a sum of Rs.40,000/- for each of the children, in the present
case the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 30,000/- each. Since there
is no cross-appeal filed by the claimants, I am not inclined to interfere
in the award of sum of Rs. 30,000/- each per claimant i.e. children and
parents of the deceased.
14. In view of the above, I find no ground to interfere with the
impugned award as the same is a well-reasoned awarded and has
correctly applied the ratio of the decisions of the Supreme Court
referred to hereinabove.
15. I find no merit in the appeal. The appeal is accordingly
dismissed.
16. The amount deposited by the appellant/insurance company with
the Registrar General of this Court alongwith interest accrued thereon,
if any, be transmitted to the Tribunal. The Tribunal shall thereafter
expeditiously disburse the same as per the scheme of disbursal
Signature Not Verified By:JUSTICE SANJEEV
Digitally Signed By:KUNAL SACHDEVA
MAGGU Signing Date:31.08.2021
Signing Date:01.09.2021 07:50:23 22:00
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
mentioned in the award.
17. Since the appellant claims to have deposited the entire awarded
amount, on verification of the same, the statutory amount deposited
with this Court be refunded to the appellant.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.
AUGUST 31, 2021
NA
Signature Not Verified By:JUSTICE SANJEEV
Digitally Signed By:KUNAL SACHDEVA
MAGGU Signing Date:31.08.2021
Signing Date:01.09.2021 07:50:23 22:00
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
