National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Roopwati & Ors.

1. Raja Ram Thakur, born on 15.07.1960, died as a result of injuries suffered in a motor vehicular accident at about 3.30 AM on 03.07.2011 involving a motor vehicle No.MP 04 GA 0554 concededly insured against third party risk with the insurer (the appellant). A claim case under Sections 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MV Act) was filed and registered before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal as case No.118/2014/11-F. The Tribunal after inquiry by judgment dated 22.11.2014 granted compensation in the sum of Rs.21,99,780 with interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realisation. The 2016:DHC:1728 insurance company is in appeal questioning the calculation of loss of dependency on the grounds that future prospects have been wrongly added to the extent of 30% over and above the income proved and that the multiplier of 13 has been wrongly adopted disregarding the fact that the deceased was only 18 days short of completing the age of 51 years.

2. Having heard the counsel on both sides this Court finds no substance in the first submission concerning the addition of future prospects. The evidence of PW[1], as noted in the impugned judgment, clearly shows that the deceased was in a regular employment earning emoluments calculated at Rs.11,800/- on the date of accident. Given the nature of employment in which he was engaged and the service conditions which have been brought out, it is clear that his income would have increased over the future years.

3. There is, however, substance in the plea about choice of multiplier. Given the fact that the deceased was on the verge of completion of 51 years, the multiplier of 11 should have been the appropriate one for calculating the loss of dependency since he would fall in the nearest slab for age-group of 51-55. This is the view taken by this Court in MAC.APP.No.636/2009 (Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rekha Vashisht) decided on 18.02.2016.

4. The average annual income of the deceased, after addition of the element of future prospects to the extent of 30%, comes to Rs.1,84,080/-. Having regard to the number of dependants, 1/4th will have to be deducted towards personal and living expenses of the deceased. Thus, the loss of dependency comes to (1,84,080 x 3 ÷ 4) Rs.1,38,060/-. On the multiplier of 11, the total loss of dependency comes to Rs.15,18,660/-.

5. The non-pecuniary damages on account of loss of consortium and loss of love and affection are also found to be on the higher side. Having regard to the view taken in Rajesh & Ors. v. Rajbir Singh & Ors., (2013) 9 SCC 54, the appropriate award under the said heads is Rs.[1] lakh each. On the other hand, the award of Rs.20,000/- for loss of estate deserves to be increased to Rs.25,000/- as per view taken in Shashikala V. Gangalakshmamma (2015) 9 SCC 150.

6. Thus, the total compensation awardable comes to (15,18,660 + 2,50,000) Rs.17,68,660/- rounded off to Rs.17,69,000/- (Rupees Seventeen Lakhs and Sixty Nine Thousand Only).

7. The Tribunal had apportioned the compensation by specifying the amounts which would fall to the share of each claimant. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, apportionment in favour of the first claimant (Roopwati) is retained, the balance being distributed equally amongst the remaining with proportionate interest. The award is modified accordingly.

8. By order dated 24.12.2014, the insurance company had been directed to deposit the entire awarded amount with accumulated interest within six weeks of order with the Registrar General of this Court. On deposit of the amount, the Registrar General was directed to release 60% of the amount in favour of the claimants as per the directions in the award through UCO Bank Delhi High Court Branch. The balance was allowed to be kept in fixed deposit with UCO Bank for one year with a provision of renewal.

9. The Registrar General is directed to calculate the shares payable to the claimants in terms of the above directions and release the same with proportionate interest in their favour. If there is any short fall, the same shall be deposited by the insurance company with the Registrar General within 30 days of today. On the other hand, if excess has been deposited or released, the same shall be refunded.

10. The statutory amount, if paid, shall also be refunded.

11. The appeal stands disposed of in above terms.

R.K. GAUBA (JUDGE) FEBRUARY 29, 2016 VLD