Delhi High Court
Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Indra Khanna & Ors. on 4 April, 2011
Author: Reva Khetrapal
Bench: Reva Khetrapal
UNREPORTED
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ MAC.APP. 292/2011
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Sameer Nandwani, Advocate
versus
INDRA KHANNA & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Navneet Goyal, Advocate for the
respondents No.1 to 6
% Date of Decision : April 04, 2011
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REVA KHETRAPAL
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed
to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?
ORDER
: REVA KHETRAPAL, J.
CM No.6691/2011
Exemption granted subject to all just exceptions. The application stands disposed of.
MAC. APP. 292/2011 Page 1 of 6 MAC.APP. 292/2011 and CM Nos.6690/2011 (stay)
1. By way of this appeal, the appellant has challenged the impugned judgment and award dated 04.02.2011 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Delhi in case No.916/09, whereby the appellant was held liable to pay to the respondent Nos.1 to 6 compensation of ` 4,24,624/- alongwith interest, if any, at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of its realisation.
2. Issue notice to the respondents No.1 to 6 to show cause as to why the appeal be not admitted. Mr. Navneet Goyal, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of the respondents No.1 to 6.
3. With the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing.
4. The facts leading to the present appeal, in a nutshell, are as follows:-
One Shri Om Lal Khanna (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased"), aged around 70 years, died in a motor vehicular accident on 29.10.2009, while he was crossing the road on foot. The deceased MAC. APP. 292/2011 Page 2 of 6 was survived by his widow, five children (all of whom were major on the date of the accident), who filed the claim petition before the learned Tribunal claiming a sum of ` 8,00,000/-. The Ld. Tribunal vide its award dated 04.02.2011, awarded a total compensation of ` 4,24,624/- in favour of the claimants and against the Respondents. Aggrieved by the said award the Appellant-insurance company has filed the present appeal.
5 It is apparent from the record that the deceased was stated to be earning ` 10,000/- per month from business, however no proof regarding the same was filed before the learned Tribunal. Accordingly, the learned Tribunal proceeded to calculate the amount of compensation on the basis of minimum wages for unskilled labourer which were in the sum of ` 3,953/- at the time of the accident. The learned Tribunal deducted therefrom 1/3rd of the amount towards personal expenses of the deceased. Thus, the amount considered for the purpose of calculating loss of dependency came out to be ` 2,635.40 per month or ` 31624.80 per annum. Thereafter, the learned Tribunal capitalized the aforesaid amount of annual loss MAC. APP. 292/2011 Page 3 of 6 of dependency with number of years' purchase taking the multiplier to be 9 and calculated the total loss of dependency to be in the sum of ` 2,84,623.30, rounded off to ` 2,84,624. In addition to this, the Ld. Tribunal also awarded a sum of ` 25,000/- towards funeral charges, ` 1,00,000/- towards loss of love and affection, ` 10,000/- towards loss of consortium and ` 5,000/- towards loss of estate. The total compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal thus worked out to be ` 4,24,624/-.
6. The only ground pressed by Mr. Sameer Nandwani, the learned Counsel for the appellant, is that the learned Tribunal erred in applying the multiplier of 9 in place of multiplier of 5 as the deceased was above the age of 70 years. The said contention was not disputed by Mr. Navneet Goyal, the learned counsel the for respondents No.1 to 6.
7. I find force in the aforesaid contention of Mr. Nandwani. The deceased was admittedly aged 70 years at the time of the accident and accordingly, the multiplier applicable in terms of the Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 as well as in terms of the MAC. APP. 292/2011 Page 4 of 6 judgment of Sarla Verma (Smt) and Others versus Delhi Transport Corporation and Another (2009) 6 SCC 121 is the multiplier of 5. It is pertinent to note here that the learned Tribunal has itself noted in para 12 of the impugned award that the relevant multiplier is the multiplier of 5, in the following terms:
"12. In the petition, the age of the deceased is stated to be as 70 years for which the relevant multiplier is 5 in terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Sarla Verma vs. DTC decided on 15.04.2009 in C.A. No. 3483/08."
8. Accordingly, the award is modified to the extent that to the multiplicand constituting the annual loss of dependency, i.e., ` 31,624.80, the multiplier of 5 is being applied. Thus calculated, the figure of the total loss of dependency of the respondents No.1 to 6 works out to ` 1,58,124/- and after adding the non-pecuniary damages of ` 1,40,000/- as awarded by the learned Tribunal, the claimants are held entitled to the total compensation of ` 2,98,124/- on account of the death of the deceased in the said accident with interest at the rate MAC. APP. 292/2011 Page 5 of 6 of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of its realisation.
9. MAC.APP. 292/2011 and CM No.6690/2011 stand disposed of accordingly.
REVA KHETRAPAL (JUDGE) April 04, 2011 km MAC. APP. 292/2011 Page 6 of 6