Partly allowed

Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rohtash Kumar Gupta & Ors.

Delhi HC14 Nov 2024MAC.APP./643/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court reduced compensation in a motor accident claim, finding the deceased's 76-year-old pension was largely for personal expenses. The court increased the personal expense deduction to 50%, lowering the loss of dependency award and setting the total compensation at Rs.9,05,490/-.

What did the court decide?

Total compensation reduced to Rs.9,05,490/- along with interest @ 9% per annum.

Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Rohtash… — Motor Accident Claims | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~11

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

% Date of decision:14^th November, 2024

¶4

- MAC.APP. 643/2019, CM APPL. 29232/2019

¶5

CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD

¶6

.....Appellant Through: Ms. Suman Bagga, Advocate.

¶7

versus

¶8

ROHTASH KUMAR GUPTA & ORS

¶9

.....Respondent

¶10

Through:

¶11

CORAM:

¶12

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA

¶13

J U D G M E N T (oral)

¶14

An Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 has been filed on behalf of the Insurance Company to challenge the Award dated 12.04.2019, whereby the compensation in the sum of Rs.12,22,500/-, along with interest @ 9% per annum, has been granted to the Respondent No.1/ son of deceased Sh. Rameshwar Dayal Gupta, who was 76 years old at the time of his demise in the accident on 31.10.2017.

¶15

The sole ground of challenge is that the deceased had only one claimant who is the married major son of the deceased. There is not an iota of evidence to show that he was financially dependent upon the deceased father. Moreover, the deceased was 76 years old and was getting a pension of Rs.29,813/- per month which cannot be considered as a case of Loss of

¶16

Signature Not Verified

¶17

MAC.APP. 643/2019 Page 1 of 3

¶18

Digitally Signed By:VIKAS ARORA Signing Da te:2 2.11.2024 17:29:30

¶19

Dependency or income to Respondent No.1; rather it can only be taken as a Loss of Estate for which 2/3^rd deduction from the pension should have been made to calculate the quantum of compensation.

¶20

Submissions heard and record perused .

¶21

Indisputably, the deceased was 76 years old and father of Respondent No.1 the son who was major and there is nothing to reflect that he was financially dependent on the deceased. Yet at the same time, it cannot be over looked that the deceased was residing with this major son. The learned Tribunal has deducted 1/3^rd from the monthly pension of Rs.29,813/towards his own personal expenses. However, it cannot be overlooked as he was 76 years old man and it can be reasonably taken that he would have been spending a lot more amount on his own personal requirements and thus, the deduction towards the personal expenses should have been made to the extent of ½.

¶22

The compensation towards Loss of Dependency is, therefore, recalculated as Rs.29183 – 14591 (50%) X 5 X 12 = Rs.8,75,490/- .

¶23

The compensation has, therefore revised as under:

¶24

Sl. No.	Compensation awarded	Amount	Amount
	under Head	awarded by the	awarded by this
		Tribunal	Court
1.	Loss of Dependency	11,92,500/-	8,75,490/-
2.	Loss of Estate	15,000/-	Same
3.	Funeral Charges	15,000/-	Same
TOTAL	COMPENSATION	Rs.12,22,500/-	Rs.9,05,490/-

¶25

The compensation granted vide impugned Award is hereby modified and

¶26

Signature Not Verified

¶27

MAC.APP. 643/2019 Page 2 of 3

¶28

Digitally Signed By:VIKAS ARORA Signing Da te:2 2.11.2024 17:29:30

¶29

the total compensation granted is Rs.9,05,490/- along with interest @ 9% per annum as per the terms of the impugned Award dated 12.04.2019.

¶30

The statutory amount deposited by the Insurance Company be refunded in accordance with law.

¶31

The Appeal stands disposed of along with the pending application.

¶32

(NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA) JUDGE

¶33

NOVEMBER 14, 2024 va

¶34

Signature Not Verified

¶35

MAC.APP. 643/2019 Page 3 of 3

¶36

Digitally Signed By:VIKAS ARORA Signing Da te:2 2.11.2024 17:29:30

Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rohtash Kumar Gupta & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rohtash Kumar Gupta & 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 Bharat Singh & Ors.

The New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs Smt Shakuntala and Ors.

The Oriental Insuranc Company Ltd. Vs Smt. Kusum and Ors.

Smt Shiny Boby Raj and Anr. Vs Tata Aig Gen Ins Co. Ltd. & Anr.

Attar Singh Vs Nitin Shokeen & Anr.

Rajpal & Ors. Vs Kotak General Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors.