Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sohan Pal & Ors.

1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may NO be allowed to see the Judgment?

2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? NO

3. Whether the judgment should be NO reported in the Digest? JUDGMENT (Oral)

1. The appellant has challenged the award of the learned Tribunal whereby compensation of Rs.4,68,300/- has been awarded to them.

2. The accident dated 1st April, 2007 resulted in the death of Kailash. The deceased was returning from his native village Bhanpur, District Bulandsahar (U.P.) on motorcycle bearing No.DL-4-SB-2340 driven by his friend, Amit Kumar when the motorcycle was hit by a truck resulting in fatal injuries to the deceased. The deceased was survived by his parents who filed the claim petition before the Claims Tribunal.

3. The deceased was aged 30 years, 11 months and 18 2010:DHC:838 matriculate. It was claimed that the deceased was employed with a shoe company earning Rs.3,300/- per month. The learned Tribunal accepted the income of Rs.3,300/- per month considering that it was less than the prescribed minimum wages of Rs.3,500/- per month, deducted 1/3rd towards the personal expenses and applied the multiplier of 17 to compute the loss of dependency at Rs.4,48,800/-. Rs.15,000/- has been awarded towards the pre-death treatment expenses, Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.2,500/- towards loss of estate. The total compensation awarded is Rs.4,68,300/-.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant has urged at the time of hearing of this appeal that the personal expenses of the deceased be increased from 1/3rd to 1/2 and the multiplier be reduced according to the age of the claimants.

5. The learned counsel for the claimants submit that the future prospects have not been taken into consideration. It is also noted that the Claims Tribunal has not awarded any compensation for loss of love and affection to which the claimants are entitled to.

6. Respondent No.1 is present in the Court and submits that he has to undergo prostrate surgery and has no means for incurring expenditure on the said surgery. Respondent No.1 is permanent resident of Village Bhanpur, PS Sikarpur District Bulandsahar (U.P.) and has visited Delhi only to attend the hearing of this case.

7. Considering that the learned Claims Tribunal has not taken into consideration the future prospects of the deceased and has not awarded any amount for loss of love and affection and also the poor economic condition of respondent No.1 and his present health condition, this Court would not like to interfere with the impugned award. However, it is made clear that this case is being decided on the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case and shall not be treated as a precedent.

8. The appellant has deposited the entire award amount with the Registrar General of this Court in terms of the order dated 9th May, 2008 out of which 75% award amount has been released to claimants/respondents No.1 and 2 and the remaining 25% award amount is lying in fixed deposit.

9. The Registrar General is directed to transfer the balance 25% award amount to State Bank of India A/c Sohan Pal, Tis Hazari Court through Mr. H.S. Rawat, Relationship Manager, Tis Hazari Branch, Tis Hazari (Mb: 09717044322) within 30 days.

10. Upon the receipt of the aforesaid amount, the State Bank of India is directed to release 50% of the said amount by transferring the same to the Saving Bank Account of the respondents and 50% remaining amount be kept in fixed deposit for one year with cumulative interest.

11. The original Fixed Deposit Receipt shall be retained by the Bank in the safe custody. However, the original Pass Book shall be given to the respondents along with the photocopy of the FDR.

12. On the expiry of the period of the FDRs, the maturity amount of the FDR be paid by automatically transferring the same to the Saving Bank Account of the respondents.