Delhi High Court
Suman Devi & Anr. vs Mahesh Arora & Anr. on 11 October, 2021
$~5
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 11th October, 2021
+ MAC.APP. 46/2021
SUMAN DEVI & ANR. ..... Appellants
versus
MAHESH ARORA & ANR. ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioners : Mr. Devendra Kr. Sharma, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. A.K. Soni, Advocate for Ins. Co. (through VC)
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.
1. Appellant impugns award dated 25.02.2020 whereby the claim
petition under Section 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicle Act 1988 has
been allowed and compensation awarded.
2. The claim petition has been filed by the parents of the deceased.
The deceased along with certain other persons was coming from
Chandigarh to Delhi in a car. The car was being driven at a very high
speed in a rash and negligent manner. Due to high speed, the driver of
the offending vehicle lost control because of which the car hit against
Digitally Signed
Signature Not Verified By:JUSTICE SANJEEV
Digitally Signed By:KUNAL SACHDEVA
MAGGU Signing Date:11.10.2021
Signing Date:12.10.2021 08:10:34 20:49
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
an electric pole and overturned. Deceased was grievously injured and
died on the way to the hospital.
3. By the impugned award, claim petition has been allowed and
compensation awarded. There is no appeal filed by the insurance
company impugning the award on merits. Claimants have filed the
subject appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the tribunal has
erred in the application of the judgment of the Supreme Court in
National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC
680. He submits that deceased was in a permanent employment and
accordingly the compensation could have been awarded by taking into
account future prospects at 50% and not at 40% as done by the
tribunal.
5. Learned counsel submits that the witness Mr. Biplab Sen,
General Manager (HR) had appeared from the employer -
Scaleneworks, People Solutions, LLP, Bangalore. He had duly
proved on record the terms of employment as Exb PW 1/1.
6. Learned counsel points out that in the very employment terms,
it is mentioned that the retirement age is 60 years and employee would
retire at the end of the month in which the employee attains 60 years
of age. He further submits that even the witness had specifically stated
Digitally Signed
Signature Not Verified By:JUSTICE SANJEEV
Digitally Signed By:KUNAL SACHDEVA
MAGGU Signing Date:11.10.2021
Signing Date:12.10.2021 08:10:34 20:49
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
that the employment was to continue till the age of 60. He further
points out that there is no cross-examination on the said aspect of the
said witness.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the insurance company submits
that tribunal has erred in awarding a sum of Rs. One lakh (i.e. Rs.
50,000/- to each of the claimants) under the head of compensation for
'Loss of Love and Affection'. He submits that compensation was
awardable only under the head of 'Loss of Consortium' and that also
at the rate of Rs. 40,000/- per claimant in terms of judgment of
Supreme Court in 'United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Satinder
Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur 2020 SCC Online SC 410'.
8. Perusal of Exb. PW1/1 (Colly.) shows that deceased was
employed on 12.03.2014 and the employment was a fulltime
employment and was not probationary. The retirement age
specifically stated in the terms of employment was 60 years. Further,
there is no cross-examination on the said aspect as well. In view of the
same, tribunal has clearly erred in taking future prospects at 40% and
not 50% as the deceased was in permanent employment.
9. Further it may be noticed that the tribunal has awarded a sum of
Rs. One lakh under the head 'Loss of Love and Affection' whereas a
sum of Rs. 80,000/- was liable to be awarded under the head of 'Loss
Digitally Signed
Signature Not Verified By:JUSTICE SANJEEV
Digitally Signed By:KUNAL SACHDEVA
MAGGU Signing Date:11.10.2021
Signing Date:12.10.2021 08:10:34 20:49
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
of Consortium'.
10. In view of the above, impugned award to the said extent
requires a modification.
11. Accordingly, it is directed that the future prospects as awarded
by the tribunal shall be taken at 50% instead of 40%. The award under
the head of 'Loss of Love and Affection' shall be deleted. However, a
sum of Rs. 80,000/- shall be awarded under the head 'Loss of
Consortium' (i.e. Rs. 40,000/- to each of the claimants).
12. The appeal is accordingly allowed and the award modified in
the above terms. The matter is remitted to the tribunal to re-compute
the amount in terms of the directions contained herein.
13. Additional amount, along with interest at the same rate as
awarded by the original award, shall be deposited by the respondent
no. 2 - Insurance Company, with the tribunal within a period of four
weeks of the computation by the tribunal.
14. The matter shall be listed before the tribunal on 11.11.2021 for
the purpose of re-computation and compliance of the directions issued
herein.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
OCTOBER 11, 2021/'rs'
Digitally Signed
Signature Not Verified By:JUSTICE SANJEEV
Digitally Signed By:KUNAL SACHDEVA
MAGGU Signing Date:11.10.2021
Signing Date:12.10.2021 08:10:34 20:49
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
