Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
JUDGMENT
& 30853/2021 THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD ..... Appellant
HON’BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K. Soni, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Somnath Parashar, Advocate
1. The hearing was conducted through video conferencing.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.
2. Appellant impugns award dated 03.12.2019 whereby the claim petition has been allowed and compensation awarded to respondent no. 1 to 4. The claim petition was filed on account of the demise of one Sazid Khan. The claimants are the legal heirs of the deceased being: wife, minor son and parents.
3. The only challenge to the impugned award is with regard to the computation. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that 2021:DHC:3121 tribunal has erred in deducting one-fourth of the salary towards personal expenses whereas one-third should have been deducted. He relies on the decision of the Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680 as also Sarla Verma &Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation &Anr (2009) 6 SCC
121.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/claimants submits that the tribunal has erred in not awarding fair and just compensation in so far as loss of consortium is concerned.
5. He relies on the judgment of the Supreme Court in United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Satinder @ Satwinder Kaur 2020 SCC OnLine SC 410 (Civil Appeal No.2705/2020) to contend that loss of consortium is not only filial loss of consortium but parental loss of consortium as well. He submits that a sum of Rs. 40,000/- each is liable to be awarded to each of the claimant.
6. Learned counsel submits that fair and just compensation is liable to be granted even if there is no application seeking enhancement of compensation. Learned counsel relies on the judgment passed in MAC. APP. 629/2010, titled ‘Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Mamta Kumari & Ors.’ and the judgment passedby the Supreme Court in‘Ibrahim Vs. Raju’ (2011) 10 SCC 634.
7. Since it is an admitted case that the father of the deceased was not financially dependent upon the deceased, applying the ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (Supra) out of the income received by the deceased, one-third should have been deducted towards personal and living expenses of the deceased.
8. Accordingly, compensation is liable to be re-computed under the head of loss of dependency. Further in view of the ratio of the judgment of the coordinate bench of this Court in Mamta Kumar (Supra) and of the Supreme Court in Ibrahim (Supra), the amount awarded under the head of loss of consortium is liable to be increased even without the filing of a cross appeal in as much as a sum of Rs. 40,000/- is liable to the awarded to each of the claimants by applying the ratio of the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Satinder @ Satwinder Kaur.
9. In view of the above, the compensation is liable to be recomputed as under: - LOSS OF DEPENDENCY = Rs. 28,99,814.40
LOSS OF CONSORTIUM = Rs. 1,60,000.00
FUNERAL EXPENSES = Rs. 15,000.00
LOSS OF ESTATE = Rs. 15,000.00
MEDICAL EXPENSES = Rs. 8,849.00