Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi High Court

National Insurance Co Ltd vs Meera Devi & Ors on 30 May, 2012

Author: G.P. Mittal

Bench: G.P.Mittal

*        IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                       Date of decision: 30th May, 2012
+        MAC.APP. 333/2012

         NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD        ..... Appellant
                      Through: Ms. Shantha Devi Raman,
                               Advocate

                     versus


         MEERA DEVI & ORS                        ..... Respondent
                      Through:             Mr. S.N. Parashar, Advocate
                                           Mr. Abhay N. Das, Advocate
                                           for DTC.

         CORAM:
         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL

                              JUDGMENT

G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)

1. Respondent No. 10 and Respondent No.12 (Manoj Kumar and M/s. Today Footwears Pvt. Ltd.) have not been served. It is, however, stated by the learned counsel for the Appellant that both the vehicles involved in the accident were insured with National Insurance Company.

2. There is no breach of the policy condition and the Appellant Insurance Company has challenged only the quantum of compensation. In the circumstances, service of Respondents No.10 and 12 is dispensed with.

3. The Appeal is taken for final disposal.

4. The Appeal is for reduction of compensation of `11,93,488/-

awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) for the death of Rajan Singh who died in a motor accident which occurred on 09.07.2006.

5. Following contentions are raised on behalf of the Appellant Insurance Company:-

(i) There was no evidence of future prospects, in spite of this, the Claims Tribunal added 30% towards the future prospects, and

(ii) The compensation of `2,25,000/- awarded towards loss of love and affection is on the higher side.

6. On the date of the accident deceased Rajan Singh was aged 44 years. He was working as a shoe designer with M/s. AIR Grip Foot Wear Pvt. Ltd. and was getting a salary of `5,400/- per month. PW-3 Subhash Chand, Director of M/s. AIR Grip Foot Wear Pvt. Ltd testified that the deceased was a permanent employee and as per the company's policy, every permanent employee including the deceased was being given an increase of 10% every year.

7. The Claims Tribunal rightly applied the ratio of Sarla Verma (Smt.) & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121 in making an addition of 30% towards the future MAC. APP. 333/2012 Page 2 of 4 prospects considering the age of the deceased to be 44 years. Thus, I do not find any error or infirmity in the grant of addition on account of future prospects.

8. The Claims Tribunal awarded a sum of `2,25,000/- towards loss of love and affection. Loss of love and affection can never be measured in terms of money. Thus, uniformity has to be adopted by the Courts while granting non-pecuniary damages. The Supreme Court in Sunil Sharma v. Bachitar Singh (2011) 11 SCC 425 and in Baby Radhika Gupta v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited (2009) 17 SCC 627 granted only ` 25,000/- (in total to all the claimants) under the head of loss of love and affection. Thus, I would reduce the compensation under this head from `2,25,000/- to ` 25,000/- only.

9. In view of the above discussion, there is overall reduction of `2,00,000/- in the compensation.

10. The overall compensation stands reduced from `11,93,488/- to ` 9,93,488/- (including the interim compensation of `50,000/-), which shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the Petition till its deposit.

11. By order dated 20.04.2012, subject to deposit of a sum of `9.93 lacs along with proportionate interest with the Registrar General of this Court, the execution of the award was stayed.

12. Appellant Insurance Company is directed to deposit the balance sum of `488/- along with proportionate interest in the name of Respondent No.1 in UCO Bank, Delhi High Court New Delhi within six weeks.

13. The compensation payable to Respondent No.1 Meera Devi, the deceased's wife would remain the same. There would be reduction in the compensation apportioned to each of the Respondents No.2 to 9 by `25,000/-.

14. The statutory amount of `25,000/- be refunded to the Appellant Insurance Company.

15. The Appeal is allowed in above terms.

(G.P. MITTAL) JUDGE MAY 30, 2012 vk MAC. APP. 333/2012 Page 4 of 4