Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 4th December, 2017 MAC APPEAL No.1138/2012
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED... Appellant
Through: Mr. A.K. De, Advocate with Mr. Zadhid Ali, Advocate
Through: Mr. Navneet Goyal, Advocate with Ms. Kavita Tyagi, Advocate for R-1 to R-4.
MAC APPEAL No.1139/2012 UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED... Appellant
Through: Mr. A.K. De, Advocate with Mr. Zadhid Ali, Advocate
Through: Mr. Navneet Goyal, Advocate with Ms. Kavita Tyagi, Advocate for R-1 to R-4.
JUDGMENT
1. Dinesh Maan and Sudesh Kumar, suffered injuries in a motor vehicular accident that had occurred on 03.05.2009, due to negligent driving of motor vehicle described as car bearing registration No.DL- 2017:DHC:7508 4CAF-3479 and died in the consequence. Two accident claim cases (MACT No792/10/09 and MACT No.793/10/09) were instituted by their respective dependent family members (hereinafter referred to as “the claimants”) on 11.09.2009. They were subjected to enquiry and, by separate judgments dated 11.07.2012, the tribunal held that the death had occurred due to negligent driving of vehicle insured with the appellant (insurer), it being held liable to pay the compensation thereby determined.
2. In the claim case on account of death of Dinesh Maan, the compensation was calculated thus:-
┌───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │
┌───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ Sl.No. Heads Amount │ │ (in Rs.) │ ├───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤ │ 1. Loss of dependency 46,99,344/- │ │ 2. Funeral charges 25,000/- │ │ MACA 1138/2012 & 1139/2012 Page 2 of 6 │ │ 2017:DHC:7508 │ │ 3. Loss of estate 1,00,000/- │ │ 4. Loss of consortium 50,000/- │ │ 5. Loss of love and affection and company, etc. 2,40,000/- │ │ 6. Loss of care and attention, etc. 1,00,000/- │ │ Total 52,14,344/- │ └───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
7. Both the above contentions in each case must be rejected.
8. There is no reason why the above mentioned allowances earned by the deceased Dinesh Maan should be kept out. They were part of the regular terms and conditions of the service and would lead to corresponding savings and, thus, have a bearing on the loss of dependency. The same logic applies to the other case. Salary for purposes of income tax calculation is distinct from earnings.
9. There is, however, substance in the grievances in these cases about the non pecuniary heads of damages which are way above the dispensation as approved by the ruling of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court rendered on 31.10.2017 in SLP (C) 25590/2014, National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors.
10. Thus, in lieu of non-pecuniary damages awarded by the tribunal, Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs.15,000/- each towards loss of estate and funeral expenses are added.
11. The compensation in the case of Dinesh Maan is re-calculated as (31,31,532/- + 40,000/- + 15,000/- + 15,000/-) Rs.32,01,532/rounded off to Rs.32,02,000/- (Rupees Thirty Two Lacs and Two Thousand Only).
12. In case of Sudesh Kumar, the compensation is determined as (46,99,344/- + 40,000/- + 15,000/- + 15,000/-) Rs.47,69,344/rounded off to Rs.47,70,000/- (Rupees Forty Seven Lacs Seventy Thousand Only).
13. The awards are modified accordingly.
14. There being no justification for imposition of higher rate of interest, following the consistent view taken by this Court, the rate of interest is reduced to nine per cent (9%) per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization. [see judgment dated 22.02.2016 in MAC.APP. 165/2011 Oriental Insurance Co Ltd v. Sangeeta Devi & Ors.].
15. There being no justification for such inclusion, the directions with regard to payment of counsel fee and out of pocket expenses are set aside.
16. Both the appeals are disposed of accordingly.
17. By order dated 30.10.2012, (passed in MAC APP.1138/2012), the insurer was directed to deposit seventy five percent (75%) of the awarded amount along with interest @ 9% per annum, with the tribunal and upon such deposit the same was ordered to be released to the claimants.
18. By order dated 30.10.2012, (passed in MAC APP.1139/2012), the insurer was directed to deposit sixty percent (60%) of the awarded amount along with interest @ 9% per annum, with the tribunal and upon such deposit the same was ordered to be released to the claimants.
19. The insurer is directed to satisfy the remainder of its liability in each cases, by requisite deposit with upto date interest with the tribunal within thirty days, making it available to be released to the claimants in terms of the impugned award.
20. The statutory amount shall be refunded to the appellant in each case, upon the proof of award having been satisfied is shown.
21. Both the appeals stand disposed of in above terms. R.K.GAUBA, J. DECEMBER 04, 2017 vk