Dismissed

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rajeev Kapoor & Ors.

Delhi HC5 Feb 2015MAC.APP./535/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal against motor accident compensation, the上用 Court dismissed the insurer's challenge regarding the inclusion of gratuitous services for a deceased employed claimant, holding the awarded sum to be just and reasonable.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed; the pending application was disposed of; the statutory amount, if any, refunded to the Appellant.

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Rajeev Kapoor… — Motor Accident Claims | Delhi HC (2015)

¶1

$~15

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

Date of decision: 5^th February, 2015

¶4

+ MAC.APP. 535/2012

¶5

RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD ..... Appellant Through: Mr. K.L. Nandwani, Adv.

¶6

versus

¶7

RAJEEV KAPOOR & ORS ..... Respondents Through: Nemo.

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL

¶9

G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)

¶10

This appeal is for reduction of compensation of Rs.39,00,655/awarded to the Respondents/Claimants for the death of Shivani Kapoor, who died in a motor vehicular accident which occurred on 12.11.2011.

¶11

The main grievance of the Appellant Insurance Company is that since the deceased Shivani Kapoor was gainfully employed on full time job, value of gratuitous services to the extent of Rs.3,000/- per month ought not to have been considered.

¶12

I have the Trial Court record before me. It was established that deceased Shivani Kapoor was working in the sample department of

¶13

MAC. APP. No.535/2012

¶14

Page 1 of 3

¶15

M/s. Orient Fashion India Private Limited since the year 2005. Her salary increased from Rs.8,500/- per month to Rs.21,280/- per month as per the last salary certificate. This included a sum of Rs.800/towards conveyance allowance. Even if the amount of Rs.800/- is excluded from the income and is taken as incidental to employment, yet salary of deceased Shivani Kapoor was Rs.20,480/-. Since she was in permanent job having good future prospects she was entitled to addition of 50% on the basis of her age of 38 years.

¶16

The loss of dependency even without addition of loss of gratuitous services comes to Rs.36,21,920/- (Rs.20,480/- x 12 – 5500/-(Income Tax) + 50% x 2/3 x 15).

¶17

On addition of Rs.1,00,000/- each towards loss of love and affection and towards loss of consortium, Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.10,000/- towards loss to estate, the overall compensation comes to Rs.38,56,920/-.

¶18

The compensation of Rs.39,00,655/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal hence, cannot be said to be excessive or exorbitant even if gratuitous services are not considered. The compensation is just and reasonable.

¶19

The appeal is bound to fail; the same is accordingly dismissed.

¶20

MAC. APP. No.535/2012

¶21

Page 2 of 3

¶22

Pending application also stands disposed of.

¶23

Statutory amount, if any, shall be refunded to the Appellant Insurance Company.

¶24

(G.P. MITTAL) JUDGE

¶25

FEBRUARY 05, 2015 vk

¶26

MAC. APP. No.535/2012

¶27

Page 3 of 3

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rajeev Kapoor & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rajeev Kapoor & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suman & Ors. Vs Reliance Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd. & Ors.

Roshni Devi & Ors. Vs Takdeer Singh & Ors.

Mahmood Ali Khan & Anr. Vs Arun Kumar Singh & Ors.

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt Sarla Katiyar & Ors.

Sarla Katiyar & Ors. Vs Santosh Srivastava & Anr.

Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Kusum Lata & Ors.