Sandeep Khatri and Ors. v. Oriental Insurance Co Ltd and Ors.

1. Impugned Award of 27^*^ November,2012 grants compensation of ^11,50,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a. to appellants-Claimants on account of death of one Jyoti, wife ofSandeep, aged 28 years, who was working as Receptionist in Wsb Net Infotech Computer Institute, in a vehicular accident on 31 March, 2010.

2. The factual background of this case, as noticed in the impugned Award, is as under:- "Petitioner No.l being the husband and petitioner No.2 being the minor daughter ofthe deceasedwho was aged about 28years havefiledthepresent claimpetition claiming therein a compensation, of Rs.30,00,000/- with interest @ 18%p.a. on the ground that on 31.3.2010 at about 9.00 PM 1— iiiFWim ihhini ■iwiiiirw 1 1 1 nm ■■■ i i MAC.APP. 285/2013 ~ 2018:DHC:9236 % the deceased was going on motorcycle alongwith her husband Sandeep/ petitioner No.1, son Abhinav, and daughter Vanshika/petitionerNo.2. When theyreachedPalla More Red^ Light Near Pulya GTK Road, Alipur a truck bearingNo.HR 55F-4550camefrom behindata high speed driven most rashly and negligently and hit the motorcycle. Due to the said impact all the occupants ofthe motorcycle fell down on the road and the wheel ofthe truck ran over Abhinav who died at the spot whereas.other persons were seriously injured in the accident. Other persons were removed to Satyawadi Raja Harish Chander Hospital whe> e Jyoti died due to the injuries received in the accident and petitioner No.l and 2 were referred to St. Stepnen Hospital. A criminal case FIR No.93/10, U/s.279/337/304A IPC was registered atPSAlipur,Delhi." ■

3. On the basis ofevidence led, impugned Award has been rendered by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (henceforth referred to as "the 9 Tribunal")andthe breakup ofcompensation awarded is as under:- 1.)Lossofdependency: ^10,20,000/- 2.)Funeralcharges '• ^10,000/- 3.)Loss ofEstate '■ ^10,000/- 4.)Loss ofConsortium: ?10,000/- 5.)Loss oflove, company and affectionetc.: " ?1,00,000/- ^11.50.000/-

4. Learned counsel for appellants submits that quantum of compensation granted by the Tribunal^^Ja^^nuddquate^^^^^T^^^see^ MAC.APP. 285/2013 ' enhancement ofcompensation on the ground that deceased was holding diploma in Herbal Beauty and was earning ^4,500/- per month while working on weekends and the said income has not been taken into consideration by the Tribunal. So,it is submitted by appellants' counsel that 'loss ofdependency" has to be reassessed and the compensation granted oughtto be suitably enhanced.

5. On the contrary, counsel for respondent-Insurer supports the impugned Award and submits that no case for enhancement of compensation is made out. It is submitted that there is np documentary evidence onrecordto supportthe claim thatthe deceased was working on weekends in a beauty parlor. It is submitted that compensation granted under the non-pecuniary heads ought to be suitably reduced in light of Supreme Courts Constitution Bench decision in Ncitional Insurance. CompanyLtd. Vs.PranaySethi& ors.(2017)16 SCC680..

6. Upon hearing and on perusal of impugned Award, evidence on record and decision cited,Ifind thatthere is no documentaiy evidence on record regarding earning ofdeceased on weekends in a beauty parlor and so,the Tribunal has rightly notgranted compensation.However,there is a diploma certificate ofthe deceased on record,which revealsthat deceased was a skilled worker. In the facts and circumstances ofthis case, it is deemed appropriate to take the minimum wages of a skilled worker to assess the income ofdeceased. The minimum wages payable to a skilled workman were ^6,448/- per month at the relevanttime. The Tribunal has made addition of30% towards "future prospects", whereas in view of Supreme Court's Constitution Bench decision in Pranay Sethi(Supra), addition of40% towards "future prospects" has to be made. However, MAC.APP.285/2013 '. i Page3of[5] V the Tribunal has rightly made deduction of 1/3'"'' towards "personal expenses"and applied multiplier of17.Inthe lightofabove,the loss of tigpewJewc;;"is reassessed as under:- ^6,448/-X 12X 2/3 X 140/100X 17= ?12,27,699.2/- (roundedofto ^12,27,700/-)

7. The compensation granted under the 'nonpecuniary heads',needs to be brought in tune with Supreme Court's Constitution Bench decision in Pranay Sethi (supra). Accordingly, compensation granted by.the Tribunal under the head of 'loss of love & affection. 'is disallowed. However, "funeral expenses" are increased from ^10,000/- to?15,000/-. Similarly, compensation granted under the head "loss ofestate" is also increased from ?10,000/- to ?15,000/- and compensation granted under the head "loss of consortium" is also increased from ?10,000/- to ^40,000/-.

8. In light ofthe aforesaid, the compensation payable to appellants- Claimants is reassessed as under S.No. Description Amount

1. Loss ofDependency ?12,27,700/-

2. Funeral Expenses ^15,000/-

3. Loss ofestate ^15,000/-

4. Loss ofconsortium ^40,000/- Total ^12,97,700/-

9. In the light ofaforesaid,total compensation payable to appellants- Claimants is enhanced from ?11,50,000/- to ^12,97,700/-. The re assessed compensation shall carry interest @ 9% per annum. The enhanced compensation be deposited by respondent-Insurer with the MAC.APP.285/2013 Page4of[5] appellants/Claimants, in the manner, already indicated in the impugned Award.

10. While modifying the impugned Award in aforesaid terms, this appeal stands accordingly disposed of.

SEPTEMBER 05,2018 r