Allowed

National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Mahendra Singh & Ors.

Delhi HC18 Jul 2018MAC.APP./242/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court reassessed compensation awarded for the death of a housewife in a motor accident. Applying Supreme Court precedents, it reduced the dependency loss, disallowed non-pecuniary loss of love and affection, standardized funeral and consortium losses, and fixed interest at 9% p.a.

What did the court decide?

Compensation reassessed from Rs. 13,60,026 to Rs. 4,21,000 with interest at 9% per annum.

National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Mahendra Singh & Ors. — Motor Accident Claims | Delhi HC (2018)

¶1

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶2

Date of Decision: July 18, 2018

¶3

- MAC.APP. 242/2013

¶4

NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. .....Appellant Through: Ms. Shantha Devi Raman & Mr. Arihant Jain, Advocates

¶5

Versus

¶6

MAHENDRA SINGH & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Pnkaj Singh Thakur, Advocate for Mr. Navneet Goyal, Advocate

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

¶8

JUDGMENT (ORAL)

¶9

Impugned Award of 13^th December, 2012 grants compensation of `13,60,026/- with penal interest @ 12% p.a. to respondents-claimants on account of death of one Anar Devi , aged 46 years in a vehicular accident on 20^th January, 2012.

¶10

The factual background of this case, as noticed in the impugned Award, is as under:-

¶11

“LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES (husband and children) of Smt.Anar Devi (since deceased) have claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.25,00,000/- with the averments that on 20/01/2012 at about 06:15 P.M. Smt. Anar Devi (since deceased) alongwith her collegue Smt. Usha Devi was coming to her house from her duty place (i.e. Jhilmil Industrial Area) on foot via Sunder Nagari. As alleged, when she reached near Bus Stand of Bus route no.280, Mata

¶12

Page 1 of 4

¶13

MAC.APP. 242/2013

¶14

Mandir, Sunder Nagari, Delhi, in the meanwhile a motorcycle bearing no. DL7SAX 8799 (Hero Honda Splendor- Black Colour), which was being driven by its driver/ respondent no.1 at a very high speed, rashly, negligently in a zag manner, without taking necessary precautions, without proper lookouts, violating the traffic rules and without any horn, came from back side and hit Smt. Anar Devi (since deceased) with great force. Consequently, Smt. Anar Devi fell down on the road and sustained grievous injuries all over body. She was immediately taken to GTB Hospital, Delhi by Smt. Usha Devi where she died during the course of her treatment and her postmortem was conducted at mortuary of GTB Hospital, Delhi. FIR No.26/2012 u/s. 279/337/304A IPC stands registered at P.S. Nand Nagri regarding this accident”

¶15

On the basis of evidence led, impugned Award has been rendered by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (henceforth referred to as “the Tribunal”) and the breakup of compensation awarded is as under:-

¶16

1.) Loss of dependency : 13,20,025.20/2.) Loss of Love and affection : 25,000/3.) Funeral expenses : 5,000/4.) Loss of Consortium : 10,000/-

¶17

_________ Total : 13,60,025.20/(rounded off to 13,60,026/-)

¶18

The challenge to impugned Award by learned counsel for appellant-Insurer is on the ground that the “loss of dependency” has been erroneously calculated by the Tribunal while taking the minimum wages payable to a matriculate and by giving increase of 15%. Reliance is placed upon Supreme Court’s decision in Jitendra Khimshankar Trivedi & ors. Vs. Kasam Daud Kumbhar & ors. (2015) 4 SCC 237 and Laxmidhar Nayak & ors. Vs. Jugal Kishore Behera & ors. (2018) 1 SCC

¶19

Page 2 of 4

¶20

MAC.APP. 242/2013

¶21

746 to submit that in case of a housewife, notional income of `3,000/p.m. is to be taken and no increase or addition is to be made. Counsel for appellant-Insurer further submits that the Tribunal has erred in not deducting 1/3^rd towards “personal expenses” and so, “loss of dependency” needs to be recalculated.

¶22

On the contrary, learned counsel for respondent-Claimants supports the impugned Award and submits that the compensation awarded is just and fair. So, it is submitted by learned counsel for respondents that this appeal deserves to be dismissed.

¶23

Upon hearing and on perusal of impugned Award, evidence on record and the decisions cited, I find that Supreme Court in Jitendra Khimshankar Trivedi (supra) and Laxmidhar Nayak (supra), has declared in no uncertain terms that in a case of housewife, notional income of `3,000/- p.m. is to be taken and no addition or increase towards “future prospects” is to be made. Since there are four dependants, the deduction of 1/4^th ought to be made towards “personal expenses” . In the light of aforesaid, “loss of dependency” is reassessed as under:-

¶24

3,000/- p.m. X 12 X 13 X 3/4 = 3,51,000/-

¶25

As regards compensation granted under the „non pecuniary heads‟ , it needs to be brought in tune with Constitution Bench decision of Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. (2017) 16 SCC 680 . Accordingly, compensation granted by the Tribunal under the head of „loss of love & affection‟ is disallowed. However, “funeral expenses” are increased from 5,000/- to 15,000/and Claimants are granted compensation of `15,000/- under the head “loss of estate” . Compensation granted under the head “loss of

¶26

MAC.APP. 242/2013

¶27

Page 3 of 4

¶28

consortium” is also increased from 10,000/- to 40,000/-.

¶29

In light of the aforesaid, the compensation payable to respondents-

¶30

claimants is reassessed as under:-

¶31

S.No.	Description	Amount
1.	Loss of Dependency	`3,51,000/-
2.	Loss of Consortium	`40,000/-
3.	Funeral Expenses	`15,000/-
4.	Loss of Estate	`15,000/-
	Total	`4,21,000/-

¶32

In the light of aforesaid, total compensation payable to appellants is reduced from 13,60,026/- to 4,21,000/-. As far as interest granted by the Tribunal is concerned, a Three Judge Bench of Supreme Court in a recent decision of Jagdish v. Mohan and Others, (2018) 4 SCC 571 has granted interest @ 9% per annum on the awarded compensation and so, in the instant case, it is directed that the modified compensation shall carry interest @ 9% per annum . Compensation awarded be released forthwith to respondents-Claimants in the manner and ratio as indicated in the impugned Award. Statutory deposit alongwith excess deposit, be refunded to appellant-Insurer.

¶33

(SUNIL GAUR) JUDGE

¶34

JULY 18, 2018 r

¶35

Page 4 of 4

¶36

MAC.APP. 242/2013

National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Mahendra Singh & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Mahendra Singh & 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

Ajay Pal Khari Vs Vijay Kumar & Anr. (Icici Lombard General Insurance)

Icici Lombard General Ins Co. Ltd. Vs Ajay Pal Khari and Anr.

Raja Vs Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors.

Mahesh Kumar Vs National Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors.

Tata Aig General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Priyanka & Ors.

Tata Aig General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Dharambir Singh & Ors.