•adeep Guar and Mr.Dev v. SMT.SATTO DEVI & ORS

1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes INDERMEET KAUR. T. (Oral) i For orders see MAC Appeal No.615/2010 AUGUST 17, 2011 nandan INDERMEET KAUR, J. 2011:DHC:14945 kri i m •IIS;, ®HSji irou X "- iA,.A<:-te I • n //s'rv, * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI o/g Date ofJudgment: 17.8.2011 + MAC APPEAL No.615/2010 & MAC APPEAL No.618/2010 NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. Appellant Through: Mr.Pradeep Guar and Mr.Dev Dutt, Advocate for the. Advocate.

VERSUS

JUSTICE INDERMEET I<A.UR

1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes INDERMEET ICAUR, T. (Oral) ' 1.' These are two appeals which have been filed by the Insurance Company. The Award is dated 01',.5.2010; three persons had died in an accident which had occurred on 26.2.2006 at about

1.30 PM; the appeal has been filed qua the amount awarded in favour of the legal representative of the Pushpender Pal Singh and Madhu; the victims along with Vipin Jain were travelling in a TATA Indica car when the car fell into the- river 'Vyas' pursuant to which MAC APPEAL Nos.615/2010 & 618/2010 ' !\ige 1or[4] iiii; — -. W[1] fi |,u /-Of cM\ I ' >' /fp( ry. '; i ' I •:: W/r> •• ' '^ all the occupants of the car had died. The- claimants were the parents of the deceased Pushpender Pal Singh and the in-laws of the deceased Madhu. Compensation in the sum of Rs.18,72,264/had been awarded in favour of the claimants qua the death of Pushpender Pal Singh; compensation in the sum of Rs.6,58,000/had been awarded to the legal representatives of the deceased Madhu. Interest had been awarded @ 8% per annum.

2. The Award has been challenged by^ the learned counsel for the Insurance Company for the amount awarded to the legal representatives of both the husband and wife namely Pushpender Pal Singh and Madhu. Contention regarding the claim of the husband is that the multipher adopted by the Tribunal is wrong. The age of the claimant or the age of the'deceased whichever is, higher has to be taken into account. ^ In this case record clearly shows that the age of the claimant was 54 years and this was the factor which had to be borne in mind while applying the multipher but the Tribunal has apphed the multiplier of 18 by keeping in view the age of the victim i.e. of Pushpender Pal Singh wh6'was aged 23 years. The same argument has also been advanced to qua the claim awarded in favour of legal representative of deceased Madhu; it is pointed out that the father in law of Madhu was aged about 54 years; the multiplier of 11 should have been MAC appeal Nos.615/2010 & 618/2010 ' l>agc2or[4] (i'l:i^ iki. /'P -'"T.lj'\ j/ adopted keeping in view the higher age of the claimant and not the. age of the victim.

3. This submission had not been countered by the learned counsel for the respondents. There appears to be an error on this count made by the Tribunal and,it accordingly requires a correction. The second argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is that in the case of the husband (Pushpender Pal Singh) deduction should have been 1/2 and not 1/3 and this is in '•t ••• view of the ratio of the Apex Court in the judgment reported in 2009 (6) Scale 129 Saria Verina & Ors. Vs. Delhi Traii^_oil rnrpnration &Aim It is pointed out that apart from the parents ofthe victim he had no other dependant. His wife had also died in the accident and the deceased had no other hability; he had no issue. This submission is also not' co^ntered by the learned counsel for the respondent.

4. There is no dispute to the other facts.

5. Keeping in view the aforenoted scenario the modified award in the case of husband Pushpender Pal Singh will accordingly ref^d as under: Rs.8619 (salary) +Rs.4309 (50% 'future prospects) - Rs. 12929 - Rs.6464 (50% deductions) xl2xll = Rs.8,53,248/-. MAC APPEAL Nos.615/2010 & 618/2010 'Puge[3] or[4] pf'

6. The amount awarded under the non-pecuniary heads calls for no interference. Interest awarded @ 8% per annum also calls for no interference. The total awarded amount in the case of Pushpender Pal Singh would be Rs.8,83,248/-.

7. The modified award in the case of Madhu will accordingly read as under: Rs.3000x12 = 36000x11=3,96,000-l-the amount of Rs.10,000 awarded under the non-pecuniary head.