Delhi High Court
Usha Rani Jain & Ors. vs Raj Pal & Ors. on 1 June, 2010
Author: Shiv Narayan Dhingra
Bench: Shiv Narayan Dhingra
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Reserve: April 23, 2010
Date of Order: June 01, 2010
+ FAO 79/1996
% 01.06.2010
Usha Rani Jain & Ors. ...Appellants
Through: Mr. Varun Kumar & Mr. Navneet Goel, Advocate
Versus
Raj Pal & Ors. ...Respondents
Through: Mr.J.N. Aggarwal and Mr. Mayank Joshi, Advocates for DTC
Mr. Ramesh Kumar, Advocate for R-3
JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA
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?
JUDGMENT
1. The present appeal has been filed by claimants being aggrieved by the award dated 5th October 1995 passed by learned Tribunal whereby the learned Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.2,40,000/- to the claimants on account of death of Shri Laxmi Chand Jain. It is contended by the appellants that the Tribunal wrongly held that the liability of the insurance company was limited to Rs.50,000/- only.
2. The deceased in this case was allegedly running a shop and dealing in tea leafs. He was not an income tax payee. The total annual sale at the shop between 1983 to 1987 in terms of sale tax returns was between Rs.1,82,000/- to Rs.2,96,000/- per annum. It has also co me on record that sons of the deceased were also in the same business and running the same shop and even after death of deceased, the shop continued to be run by the sons of deceased. The learned Tribunal after taking into account the entire evidence and the annual sales, came to conclusion that his income at FAO 79 of 1996 Usha Rani Jain & Ors. v. Raj Pal & Ors. Page 1 Of 4 the time of death must be around Rs.1500/- per month and this, in my view, was a right assessment. The annual sales on the shop were of Rs.2,50,000/-. If 10% of the sales is considered as the normal profit in tealeaf business, the annual income from the shop would have been around Rs.25,000/- and since sons of the deceased were also working on the same shop and the shop had to meet other expenses, the income of the deceased was rightly assessed around Rs.1500/- per month.
3. The Tribunal deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses. It is submitted by the appellant that the deceased has left behind his widow and two sons and two daughters and mother. Therefore, the deduction towards his personal expenses should have been 1/4th. I consider that this argument must fail. Two sons of the deceased were not only married but were working and were not dependent on him. Nothing has been stated about the daughters. Even if it is believed that the daughters were dependent on him apart from widow and mother. The dependents on the deceased were four and even as per Sarla Varma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr.;(2009) 6 SCC 121, the deductions on account of personal expenses would be 1/3rd. The Tribunal while calculating compensation took income of the deceased as Rs.3000/- per month instead of Rs.1500 and then deducted 1/3rd. However, view of Sarla Varma's case, as the age of deceased was above 50 years, no future prospects were liable to be added and since the deceased was in business, only the actual income was to be taken into account. Thus, the Tribunal in fact calculated compensation by doubling the income and it cannot be said that the Tribunal in any manner awarded less compensation or unjust compensation. If the parameters of Sarla Varma's case(supra) had been applied, the compensation would have been just half. I, therefore, consider that no case is made out for enhancement of compensation. The appeal of appellants on this count must fail.
3. The Tribunal had observed that the premium paid by insurer in this case was FAO 79 of 1996 Usha Rani Jain & Ors. v. Raj Pal & Ors. Page 2 Of 4 Rs.240/- since it was not pleaded that any extra premium had been paid, the liability of insurance company was limited to Rs.50,000/-. I consider that this part of award passed by Tribunal is contrary to Motor Vehicles Act as well as contrary to Tariff Regulations. The Motor Vehicle act, 1939 was amended in October 1982 and the minimum liability of the insurance companies was increased from Rs.50,000/- to Rs.1,50,000/-. Accident in this case had taken place in 1985. Thus, the minimum statutory obligation of the insurance company in case the vehicle was insured for 'act only' policy was Rs.1,50,000/-. As per the Tariff Regulations, the premium for act only policy was Rs.200/- and the premium for public risk policy was Rs.240/- per month. (Tariff Table is given below):
CLASS A (2) - GOODS CARRYING VEHICLES-GENERAL CARTAGE (PUBLIC CARRIER) PREMIUM FOR Licensed Carrying 'Own Damage' Liability to 'Act Capacity of the Cover the Public Only' Vehicle Risks
(a) Not exceeding Rs.340 Plus Rs.120/- Rs.100/-
1016 Kgs. (1 Ton) 1.05% on I.E.V.
(b) Not exceeding Rs.550 Plus Rs.240/- Rs.200/-
3048 Kgs. (3 Tons) 1.10% on I.E.V.
(c) Not exceeding Rs.850 1.10% Rs.240/- Rs.200/-
5080 Kgs. (5 Tons) on I.E.V.
(d) Exceeding 5080 Rs.850 plus Rs.240/- Rs.200/-
Kgs. (5 Tons) Rs.200 for each
additional 1016
Kgs. (1 Ton) or
part thereof plus
1.10 on I.E.V.
N.B.: Vide Note to IMT Endorsement No.26 special Exclusions (Commercial Vehicles Policies only)
4. I, therefore, consider that the liability of the insurance company in this case was unlimited in view of the judgment of this Court in F.A.O. No.257 of 1991 Neeta Trehan & Ors. Vs. Gopal Krishan & Ors., decided on 17th May, 2010.
FAO 79 of 1996 Usha Rani Jain & Ors. v. Raj Pal & Ors. Page 3 Of 4
5. In the result, the appeal, for enhancement of compensation is dismissed. However, appeal is allowed to the effect that liability of insurance company was not limited to Rs.50,000/- but it was unlimited. The appeal stands disposed of and the insurance company was liable to pay the entire compensation as awarded by Tribunal. The insurance company is directed to pay the awarded amount along with interest after adjusting the amount already paid within six weeks.
June 01, 2010 SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA J. rd FAO 79 of 1996 Usha Rani Jain & Ors. v. Raj Pal & Ors. Page 4 Of 4