National Insurance Company Lt vs Dil Aaferoon Begum & Ors

R.K.Gauba, J

Mohd. Zuvair, a bachelor, aged 22 years, suffered injuries in a motor vehicular accident that occurred on 07.08.2014 due to negligent driving of a

motor vehicle described as truck bearing registration no.DL-1M-6011 and died in the consequence. On the accident claim case (MACP 187/2014),

instituted by the first to eight respondents, they including the parents and siblings of the deceased, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Tribunal) held

inquiry and, by judgment dated 15.02.2014, awarded compensation in the total sum of Rs.22,69,000/-. The liability to pay the said amount with interest

at the rate of 9% p.a. has been fastened on the appellant (insurer), it admittedly having issued an insurance policy covering third party risk in respect

of the truck for the period in question.

By the appeal at hand, the insurer questions the calculation of compensation submitting that the tribunal fell into error in computing the loss of

dependency by adopting the minimum wages prevalent in Union Territory of Delhi ignoring the fact that the deceased was resident of Uttar Pradesh;

that the element of future prospects to the extent of 50% were wrongly added; that the multiplier should have been adopted according to the age of

the claimant parents and not as per the age of the deceased; and that the non-pecuniary damages in the amounts of Rs.2,00,000/- towards loss of love

and affection, Rs.1,00,000/- for loss to estate and Rs.25,000/- for funeral expenses are excessive.

The contention about the minimum wages of Delhi being inappropriate is to be rejected for the simple reason the claimants had shown to the

tribunal that the deceased was working for gain in a private company M/s. Rinku Transport in Delhi. It may be that they were unable to bring home

any clear and cogent evidence about the level of earnings but that does not detract from the fact that he was working for gain in Delhi. Following the

dispensation of a 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., the contention about the future prospects must be accepted and the same be restricted to 40%. However, following the

declaration of law in Pranay Sethi (supra), endorsing the previous ruling of the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation

& Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121, the exception taken to the multiplier is incorrect. Similarly, non-pecuniary damages have to be brought in sync with the

ruling in Pranay Sethi (supra). It is noted that the deceased was a student of the course leading to the degree of Bachelor of Arts. In this view, the

minimum wages payable to a matriculate (Rs.10,374/-) would deserve to be adopted. The submission of the claimants that deduction on account of

personal and living expenses be made as per the number of claimants cannot be accepted. The siblings are dependents of the father, the claim being

on account of death of a bachelor, 50% deduction on this account is in accord with the ruling in Sarla Verma (supra).

The loss of dependency is recalculated as [Rs.10,374/- x 140/100 / 2 x 12 x 18] Rs.15,68,548.8, rounded off to Rs.15,69,000/-(Rupees Fifteen lakh

and sixty nine thousand only).

In view of the dispensation in Pranay Sethi (supra), Rs.15,000/-each is added towards loss to estate and funeral expenses. Thus, the total

compensation is computed as [Rs.15,69,000/- + Rs.15,000/- + Rs.15,000/-] Rs.15,99,000/- (Rupees Fifteen lakh and ninety nine thousand only). The

award is modified accordingly. It shall carry interest as levied by the tribunal.

The apportionment of the award as directed by the tribunal will prevail.

By order dated 25.04.2017, the insurance company had been directed to deposit the entire awarded amount with interest accrued thereon which

deposit was directed to be put in fixed deposit receipt. The Registry shall calculate the amount payable to the claimants in terms of the modified award

and refund the excess in deposit with statutory deposit to the insurance company.

The appeal and the pending applications stand disposed of in above terms.