Full Text
UNREPORTED
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
MAC. APP. 170/2009
RAMKALI & ORS. ..... Appellants
Through: Ms. Pooja Goel, Advocate
Through: Mr. Kanwal Chaudhry, Advocate for the respondent
No.3
Date of Decision: January 27, 2011
JUDGMENT
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 (ORAL): REVA KHETRAPAL, J. The sole ground urged by the learned counsel for the appellants in this case is that the mode of disbursement of the amount awarded by the Tribunal, i.e., ` 7,55,500/- (excluding the interim award 2011:DHC:486 granted to the appellants) is unjustified, for, thereby, the entire awarded amount is kept with the Insurance Company and only the monthly instalment of ` 3,987/- per month is being released to the claimants, who are the parents of the deceased, which amount is even less than the interest earned on the award amount. Even otherwise, the monthly instalment of ` 3,987/- is not sufficient to meet the expenses of the appellants.
2. The impugned portion of the award reads as under:
3. The learned counsel for the appellants relies upon the decision of this Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Balpreet Kaur, MAC. APP. No.250/2010 decided on 21.04.2010 to contend that the grant of monthly instalments of the awarded amount by the learned Tribunal is wholly unjustified. In the said case, the learned Tribunal by the impugned award had calculated a monthly loss of income to the legal representatives of the deceased and thereafter calculated loss of dependency till the passing of the award, i.e., for 22 months, and on that basis had directed that the Insurance Company shall pay that amount and shall continue to pay monthly loss of income to the legal heirs of the deceased, viz., to the wife till she re-marries or till death and to the other legal heirs, being the minor children, till they attain majority. In this context, this Court held as follows: “There is no provision under Motor Vehicles Act for fixing compensation on monthly payment basis or like pension as fixed by the learned Tribunal. The compensation has to be awarded to the parties as a lumpsum amount. This Court vide order dated 14th November 2008 in MAC Appeal No.651 of 2007 had passed a similar order of fixing pension and the matter was taken to the Supreme Court in SLP. The order of fixing of pension was set aside by the Supreme Court and a lumpsum payment was directed to be given to the claimants. Keeping in view the fact that grant of compensation as monthly payment has not found favour with the Supreme Court, I consider that the Tribunal should fix lumpsum compensation in accordance with law. In the result, both the appeals are allowed and the matter is remanded back to the Tribunal for adjudicating lumpsum compensation payable to the claimant as per law.”
4. Another Bench of this Court in MAC. APP. No.651/2007 titled as United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Reeta Devi and Ors,. decided on 04.11.2008, had directed the Insurance Company to send the respective share of monthly payment to the claimants by way of crossed cheques by the 10th of every month at the addresses mentioned in the memo of parties or at any other address to be furnished by the claimants to the Insurance Company on the premise that it would be in the interest of justice to direct the Motor Accident Claims Tribunals to award compensation amount by periodical instalments only and not in lumpsum. Reversing this direction of the Delhi High Court, the Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal
(Civil) No(s). 15796/2009 Reeta Devi and Anr. vs. United India
Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. held that the grant of monthly instalments of the awarded amount by the learned Tribunal was wholly unjustified.
5. No judgment to the contrary is cited by the learned counsel for the respondent No.3/Insurance Company.
6. There is no dispute to the fact that a total sum of ` 8,05,500/minus ` 50,000/-, being the amount of the interim award, with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of the filing of the petition on 15.01.2007 till its realization was awarded to the appellants No.1 and 2/claimants, which comes to ` 7,55,500/-. There is also no dispute as to the fact that out of this amount, the appellants No.1 and 2 have already received a total sum of ` 1,99,350/-, out of which ` 99,675/- has been paid to the appellant No.1 Ramkali, the mother of the deceased and ` 99,675/- has been paid to the appellant No.2 Phool Singh, the father of the deceased. There is also no dispute as to the fact that till date monthly cheques of ` 3,987/- are being received by the appellants No.1 and 2 from the respondent No.3 – Insurance Company. In this view of the matter, after deducting the aforesaid sum of ` 1,99,350/- plus the monthly cheques received by the appellants till date, the Insurance Company shall deposit the balance amount with the Registrar General of this Court. The and 2, sixty per cent of the deposited amount in the ratio of 50:50. The balance forty per cent shall be kept in two Fixed Deposit Receipts in the names of the appellant No.1 and the appellant No.2 in equal shares for a period of five years and thereafter released to the appellants No.1 and 2. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
REVA KHETRAPAL (JUDGE) January 27, 2011 km