AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
29 paragraphs · 572 wordsR.K.Gauba, J
Manish Jha, aged 27 years, employed in a private entity, died due to injuries suffered in motor vehicular accident that occurred on 19.01.2011 on
account of negligent driving of motor vehicle described as one bearing registration no. DL 1PB 6680 which was admittedly insured against third party
risk with the appellant (insurer) for the period in question. On the accident claim case (Suit No. 1/11) instituted on 16.03.2011 by his wife and four
other members of the family dependent on him, they being first to fifth respondents (collectively the claimants) the tribunal, by judgment dated
02.03.2012, awarded compensation in the total sum of Rs. 12,91,760/-, fastening the liability to pay with interest @7.5% per annum against the insurer
which is in appeal to question the said computation of compensation.
The appeal was admitted and put in the list of regulars as per order dated 02.11.2012. When it is called out for hearing on its own turn, there is no
appearance on behalf of the claimants. The appeal has been heard with the assistance of the learned counsel for the insurer and the record perused.
The counsel of the insurer presses the appeal only to argue that the element of future prospects of increase in income to the extent of 50% added
against the income notionally assessed with minimum wages (Rs. 5,278/-) was incorrect and that the awards under non pecuniary heads of damages
in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- each towards funeral expenses, loss of consortium and loss to estate; and Rs. 50,000/- towards loss of love and affection
are excessive.
Having regard to the decision of the Constitution Bench of a Supreme Court rendered on 31.10.2017 in SLP (C) 25590/2014, National Insurance
Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors., suitable corrections are required to be made.
Since the claimants were unable to prove the gainful employment of the deceased or the earnings therefrom and the tribunal was constrained to go
by the minimum wages, the element of future prospects will have to be restricted to 40%.
Thus, the loss of dependency is recomputed as (5,278 x 140 ÷100 x 3 ÷ 4 x 12 x 17) Rs. 11,30,547.60 rounded off to Rs. 11,31,000/-. Following
the dispensation in Pranay Sethi (supra) Rs. 40,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs. 15,000/- each on account of loss to estate and funeral
expenses are added. Thus, the total compensation in the case is calculated as (11,31,000 + 40,000 + 15,000 + 15,000) Rs. 12,01,000/- (Rupees Twelve
Lakhs One Thousand only). The award is modified accordingly.
Following the consistent view taken by this Court, the rate of interest is increased to 9% (nine percent) 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.].
By Order dated 27.04.2012, the insurance company had been directed to deposit the entire awarded amount with upto date interest with UCO
Bank, Delhi High Court Branch. By subsequent order dated 02.11.2012, 50% of the awarded amount was permitted to be released to the claimants.
The balance shall now be released to the claimants in terms of the modification ordered above. As the award has been reduced, the excess amount
deposited shall be refunded to the appellant.
The statutory amount shall also be refunded.
The appeal is disposed of in above terms.