Partly allowed

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Ram Roop & Ors.

Delhi HC2 Feb 2018MAC.APP./1011/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court modified the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award in a Section 163A petition. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, it held the vehicle owner liable instead of the insurer and excluded the 50% future prospects addition, reducing total compensation.

What did the court decide?

Total compensation reduced to Rs. 4,79,700/-; liability shifted to vehicle owner with recovery rights granted to insurer; impugned award modified.

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Ram Roop & Ors. — Insurance | Delhi HC (2018)

¶1

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶2

Date of Decision: February 02, 2018

¶3

MAC.APP. 1011/2015 & C.M. 32164/2015

¶4

ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD. ..... Appellant Through: Mr. L.K. Tyagi, Advocate

¶5

Versus

¶6

RAM ROOP & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. S.N.Prashar, Advocate for claimants

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

¶8

JUDGMENT

¶9

Impugned Award of 12^th October, 2015 grants compensation of `7,17,300/- with interest @ 9% p.a. to respondents-claimants on death of one- Krishan Kumar , son of Ram Roop , aged 20 years, who had died in a vehicular accident on 16^th January, 2008 while he was driving motor cycle of third respondent herein. The factual position of this case stands already noted in the impugned Award and so, needs no reproduction.

¶10

Suffice to note that apart from evidence of Ram Roop , father of deceased (PW-1/A) and eye witness Sunil Kumar (PW-1) , there is evidence of Nagendera Paswan (R2W1) , from the office of Regional Transport Authority (RTA), who has proved the driving license of deceased. While relying upon the evidence of aforesaid witnesses, learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (henceforth referred to as “the

¶11

MAC.App. 1011/2015

¶12

Page 1

¶13

Tribunal”) has assessed the income of deceased on minimum wages and added 50% towards future prospects and after deducting 1/3^rd towards personal expenses and applying multiplier of 18, the loss of dependency has been assessed at 7,12,800/-. Learned Tribunal has also granted 2,000/- towards funeral expenses and `2,500/- towards loss of estate.

¶14

The challenge to the impugned Award by learned counsel for appellant-insurer is on the ground that the deceased was neither the owner nor the driver of vehicle in question and so, insurance company is not liable to compensate respondent-claimants. It is submitted that as per evidence on record, the deceased was merely an employee of third respondent and he had borrowed the vehicle from the owner and so, the liability to pay compensation is of the owner and not of the insurer. To submit so, reliance is placed upon Supreme Court’s decisions in Ningamma & Anr. Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (2009) 13 SCC 710 and Sanjeev Kumar Samrat Vs. National Insurance Company Limited & ORs. (2014) 14 SCC 243. Learned counsel for appellant-Insurer submits that addition of 50% towards future prospects is unwarranted, as the compensation has been assessed in the instant case in a petition under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 .

¶15

Third respondent, who is the owner of vehicle in question, has been served by way of publication but none appears on behalf of third respondent.

¶16

Learned counsel for respondents-claimants concedes the legal position that in a petition under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act , 1988 addition of 50% towards future prospects cannot be granted but

¶17

MAC.App. 1011/2015

¶18

Page 2

¶19

submits that deceased was an employee of third respondent and so, appellant-insurer is liable to pay the awarded compensation.

¶20

Upon hearing and on perusal of impugned Award, material on record and the decisions cited, I find that Supreme Court in Ningamma and Sanjeev Kumar (Supra) has reiterated that liability of insurer to pay compensation is only towards third party and not where the driver steps into the shoes of owner of the vehicle in question. In light of above referred dictum of Supreme Court in Ningamma and Sanjeev Kumar (Supra) , impugned Award on the liability aspect is accordingly modified and it is held that liability to pay the awarded amount is of respondentowner and not of appellant-Insurer. In the facts and circumstances of this case, appellant-insurer is granted recovery rights against third respondent.

¶21

It is settled legal position that in a petition under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act , future prospects cannot be granted and so the impugned Award is accordingly modified. The loss of dependency is now reassessed as:-

¶22

3300- 1/ 3<sup>rd</sup> = 2,200 X 12 X 18 = `4,75,200/-

¶23

So far compensation under the non-pecuniary heads is concerned, I find that in view of Supreme Court’s decisions in Ningamma and Sanjeev Kumar (Supra) , compensation payable under the non-pecuniary heads is 2,000/- towards _funeral expenses_ and 2,500/- towards loss of estate , as granted by the learned Tribunal and thus the compensation assessed is `4,79,700/-.

¶24

The impugned award is accordingly modified by reducing the total compensation from 7,17,300/- to 4,79,700/-, which shall carry interest @ 9% p.a., as awarded by the learned Tribunal. This Court is informed

¶25

MAC.App. 1011/2015

¶26

Page 3

¶27

that in terms of order of 7^th January, 2016, the awarded amount stands deposited with the Registry of this Court, which has been invested in fixed deposit receipt. Vide order of 8^th August, 2016, this Court had directed release of interest accrued upon the fixed deposit receipt to respondents No.1 & 2- claimants in equal shares. Registry is directed to release the amount payable to respondent-claimants in terms of this judgment and refund the excess amount to appellant- Insurance Company, if any. Statutory deposit, if any, be refunded to appellant as per rules.

¶28

With aforesaid directions, this appeal and the pending application are disposed of.

¶29

SUNIL GAUR (JUDGE)

¶30

FEBRUARY 02, 2018 r

¶31

MAC.App. 1011/2015

¶32

Page 4

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Ram Roop & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Ram Roop & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vijay Kumar Sharma Vs United India Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors.

Ms Ranju Sharma & Ors. Vs the Directorate of Education & Ors.

Yogesh Dutt Vs Director of Education & Ors.

Rita Rani and Anr. Vs Delhi State Civil Supplies Corp. Ltd.

National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Khushi Ram & Ors.

Nauman Ahmad Khan Vs Managing Committee Rabea Girls Public School and Anr.