Dismissed

Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Archana & Ors.

Delhi HC12 Feb 2016MAC.APP./539/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An appeal by an insurance company against the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's inclusion of future prospects in calculating loss of dependency for a deceased driver, which the High Court affirmed as justified based on the deceased's increasing income.

What did the court decide?

The appeal filed by the insurance company under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, was dismissed.

Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Archana & Ors. — Motor Accident Claims | Delhi HC (2016)

¶1

$~27

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

Date of Decision: 12^th February, 2016

¶4

MAC.APP. 539/2014 & CM APPL. 10307/2014, 23200/2015 SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD ..... Appellant

¶5

Through: Mr. Sameer Nandwani, Adv.

¶6

versus

¶7

ARCHANA & ORS ..... Respondents Through: Mr. S. N Parashar, Adv. for R-1 to 5.

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA

¶9

JUDGMENT

¶10

R.K.GAUBA, J (ORAL):

¶11

By appeal at hand preferred under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the MV Act), the insurance company seeks to question the computation of compensation by the motor accident claims tribunal (the tribunal) as awarded by judgment dated 24.04.2014 in MACT case registered as suit no.130/12 only on the ground that the element of future prospects has been wrongly added to calculate the loss of dependency.

¶12

The claim case had arisen out of death of Dhan Singh in motor vehicular accident on 17.01.2012 involving truck bearing registration no.RJ-32-GA-8868 which concededly was insured with the appellant company against third party risk for the period in question.

¶13

MAC APPEAL No. 539/2014 Page 1 of 3

¶14

It is noted that the claim petition arose out of the detailed accident report (DAR) treated as claim petition. The widow and other members of the family dependant on the deceased Dhan Singh were joined as parties and eventually assisted in the inquiry conducted by the tribunal. In the course of the said inquiry, the widow Archana (first respondent herein) sought to prove title to compensation and status besides earnings of the deceased through her affidavit (Ex.PW1/A). In addition, she examined one Anil Kumar (PW1) and Dharmender Kumar (PW3) in support of her case. According to the evidence of PW1, the deceased was engaged as a driver with M/s D. K. Transport Service, Kishan Garh, Vasant Kunj, Delhi at salary of Rs.15,000/- per month. PW3 is the proprietor of the said concern and proved on the basis of the records of employment (Ex.PW3/1 and PW3/3) that the deceased was engaged at the relevant point of time as driver at a salary of Rs.15,000/- with bonus and that earlier he was engaged as munim by the same some entity at a salary of Rs.11,000/- per month from year 2007 onwards.

¶15

In the face of the above evidence, it is clear that the income of the deceased, a person aged 24 years had been on the increase over the period of his employment. Thus, there is no substance in the argument that the element of future prospects could not have been added.

¶16

The appeal is, therefore, unmerited and is liable to be dismissed.

¶17

By order dated 24.07.2014, the insurance company had been directed to deposit the awarded amount with interest with the Registrar General and out of the said deposit, sixty percent (60%) was allowed to be released to the claimant. The Registrar General shall release the balance in terms of the impugned judgment.

¶18

MAC APPEAL No. 539/2014 Page 2 of 3

¶19

The statutory deposit, if made, shall be refunded.

¶20

The appeal is disposed of in above terms.

¶21

R.K. GAUBA

¶22

(JUDGE)

¶23

FEBRUARY 12, 2016/ ssc

¶24

MAC APPEAL No. 539/2014 Page 3 of 3

Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Archana & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Archana & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Dharam Prakash & Ors.

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Kavita Nagar & Ors.

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Rajvir Singh and Ors.

Samunder Singh Vs Inder Singh & Ors.

Allauddin Vs the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.

Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Saleem & Ors.