Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co Ltd v. Rohtash Kumar Gupta & Ors

Delhi High Court · 14 Nov 2024 · 2024:DHC:9030
Neena Bansal Krishna
MAC.APP. 643/2019
2024:DHC:9030
motor_vehicle_accident_compensation appeal_allowed Significant

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court modified the compensation awarded in a motor accident claim by increasing the deduction for personal expenses from the deceased pensioner's income, thereby reducing the loss of dependency amount payable to the major son claimant.

Full Text
Translation output
MAC.APP. 643/2019
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 14th November, 2024
MAC.APP. 643/2019, CM APPL. 29232/2019
CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD .....Appellant
Through: Ms. Suman Bagga, Advocate.
VERSUS
ROHTASH KUMAR GUPTA & ORS .....Respondent
Through:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
JUDGMENT
(oral)

1. An Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 has been filed on behalf of the Insurance Company to challenge the Award dated 12.04.2019, whereby the compensation in the sum of Rs.12,22,500/-, along with interest @ 9% per annum, has been granted to the Respondent No.1/ son of deceased Sh. Rameshwar Dayal Gupta, who was 76 years old at the time of his demise in the accident on 31.10.2017.

2. The sole ground of challenge is that the deceased had only one claimant who is the married major son of the deceased. There is not an iota of evidence to show that he was financially dependent upon the deceased father. Moreover, the deceased was 76 years old and was getting a pension of Rs.29,813/- per month which cannot be considered as a case of Loss of Dependency or income to Respondent No.1; rather it can only be taken as a Loss of Estate for which 2/3rd deduction from the pension should have been made to calculate the quantum of compensation.

3. Submissions heard and record perused.

4. Indisputably, the deceased was 76 years old and father of Respondent No.1 the son who was major and there is nothing to reflect that he was financially dependent on the deceased. Yet at the same time, it cannot be over looked that the deceased was residing with this major son. The learned Tribunal has deducted 1/3rd from the monthly pension of Rs.29,813/towards his own personal expenses. However, it cannot be overlooked as he was 76 years old man and it can be reasonably taken that he would have been spending a lot more amount on his own personal requirements and thus, the deduction towards the personal expenses should have been made to the extent of ½.

5. The compensation towards Loss of Dependency is, therefore, recalculated as Rs.29183 – 14591 (50%) X 5 X 12 = Rs.8,75,490/-.

6. The compensation has, therefore revised as under:

┌───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│                           Sl. No.     Compensation      awarded Amount                  Amount                │
│                                       under Head                   awarded by the awarded by this             │
│                                                                    Tribunal             Court                 │
├───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│                           1.          Loss of Dependency           11,92,500/-          8,75,490/-            │
│                           2.          Loss of Estate               15,000/-             Same                  │
│                           3.          Funeral Charges              15,000/-             Same                  │
│                           TOTAL COMPENSATION                       Rs.12,22,500/-       Rs.9,05,490/-         │
│                           The compensation granted vide impugned Award is hereby modified and                 │
│ Signature Not Verified                                                                                        │
│ Digitally Signed          MAC.APP. 643/2019                                                     Page 2 of 3   │
│ By:VIKAS ARORA                                                                                                │
└───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

7. The statutory amount deposited by the Insurance Company be refunded in accordance with law.

8. The Appeal stands disposed of along with the pending application.

JUDGE NOVEMBER 14, 2024