Delhi High Court
Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Co. ... vs Issak Khan & Ors. on 26 March, 2014
Author: Suresh Kait
Bench: Suresh Kait
$~17 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on: 26th March, 2014 + MAC.APP. 1229/2012 CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. ..... Appellant Represented by: Ms.Suman Bagga and Mr.Pankaj Gupta, Advocates. Versus ISSAK KHAN & ORS. ....Respondents Represented by: None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J.MAC.APP. 1229/2012
1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant/Insurance Company challenging the impugned award dated 11.09.2012 on the sole ground that while awarding the compensation for loss of dependency, the learned Tribunal has adopted the multiplier of 18, whereas multiplier as per the age of the mother of the deceased should have been applied as he was a bachelor.
2. The issue of multiplier has been dealt with by this Court in the case of Mohd. Hasnain & Ors. Vs. Jagram Meena & Ors. bearing MAC. APP. No. 152/2014, decided on 24.03.2014, wherein held as under:-
"21. The maximum value of the multiplier is fixed at '18', which is fairly representing the purchasing capacity of a victim in a stable economy. In the ascertainment of purchasing capacity of the victim, the age of the claimant has no relevance because of the fact that it has no nexus with the assessment of the loss of dependency.
22. Moreover, subsequent to the introduction of Section 163A and the Second Schedule of the Act, the Apex Court in Trilok Chandra, introduced a structural change by increasing the numerical value of multiplier from '16'to'18', whereas it had been fixed at '16'as per Susamma Thomas. Specifically, there was no variation in respect of fundamental premise of 'multiplier method' as held in Susamma Thomas. In Trilok Chandra, the apex court has taken the second schedule as a guiding factor.
23. Significantly, the Apex Court in the case of Reshma Kumari and M. Nag Pal has followed the age of the victim as a factor for selecting the multiplier. Specifically, in the selection of multiplier for the age group up to '15' the Apex Court never considered the age of the claimants as a relevant factor. Therefore, this court finds no reason to adopt a different formula for the victim who is above '15' years of age, whereas the relevant factors have been adopted by the Apex Court such as (i) age of the deceased (ii) income of the deceased and (iii) number of dependents. The Apex Court, while formulating the relevant factors for the assessment of loss of dependency, the age of the claimants never considered as a factor. Finally, in the assessment of dependency, the courts / tribunals are computing the purchasing capacity of the deceased; not the claimants. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the age of the victim is the proper factor for selecting the correct multiplier."
3. Admittedly, age of the deceased was 21 years on the date of the accident and taking note of the same, the learned Tribunal has applied the multiplier of 18 appropriately.
4. Therefore, keeping in mind the view taken by this Court in the aforenoted case and the facts and circumstances of this case, I find no merit in the instant appeal. The same is accordingly dismissed.
5. Consequently, the Registry of this Court is directed to release the statutory amount in favour of the appellant/Insurance Company and the balance compensation in favour of the respondents/claimants in terms of the award dated11.09.2012 on taking necessary steps by them.
CM No. 20055/2012 (for stay) With the dismissal of the appeal itself, this application has become infructuous. The same is accordingly dismissed.
SURESH KAIT, J. MARCH 26, 2014 sb AC. APP. No.1229/2012 Page 4 of 4