Tata Aig General Insurance Co Ltd v. Shoshi Devi & Ors

J U D G M E N T G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)

¶1The learned counsel for the Appellant states that there is no dispute with regard to Appellant's liability as there is no breach of the terms and conditions of the policy. His request for dispensing with service of Respondent No.8, who was the driver of the offending vehicle is allowed.

¶2The Appeal is for reduction of compensation of `9,05,784/- awarded for the death of Sanjay Kumar @ Sanjeev Kumar who was died in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 26.12.2008.

¶3The Appellant Insurance Company does not challenge the finding on negligence; the same, therefore, has attained finality.

¶4During inquiry before the Claims Tribunal it was claimed that the deceased was working as a Labour Supervisor in M/s. Nitco Roadways Pvt. Ltd., DBG Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi and was earning `12,000/-

per month. The Claimants failed to prove any salary certificate or examine any witness from the employer to prove the employment or the salary of the deceased.

¶5The Claims Tribunal took the minimum wages of a skilled worker; added 50% towards inflation; deducted one-fourth towards personal and living expenses (as the number of dependents were six); applied the multiplier of 17 as per the age of the deceased to compute the loss of dependency as `8,45,784/-. The Claims Tribunal further awarded a sum of `60,000/- towards non pecuniary damages.

¶6It is urged by the learned counsel for the Appellant that there was no evidence with regard to deceased's future prospects. Thus, only an addition of 30% could have been made on account of inflation.

¶7On the other hand, it is stated by the learned counsel for the Claimants that the compensation awarded is just and reasonable.

¶8I am in agreement with the learned counsel for the Appellant that in the absence of any evidence with regard to future prospects only an addition of 30% towards inflation should have been made in the deceased's income on the basis of the ratio in Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors., 2012 (4) SCALE 559.

¶9The loss of dependency thus comes to `7,32,548/- (3683/- + 30% x 3/4 x 12 x 17).

¶10On adding a sum of `60,000/- towards non pecuniary damages, as awarded by the Claims Tribunal, the overall compensation comes to `7,92,548/- as against 9,05,784/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal.

¶11The excess amount of `1,13,236/- along with proportionate interest and the interest accrued, if any, during the pendency of the Appeal shall be refunded to the Appellant Insurance Company.

¶12The compensation awarded to the Claimants shall be disbursed/held in fixed deposit in terms of the order passed by the Claims Tribunal.

¶13The statutory deposit of `25,000/- be refunded to the Appellant Insurance Company.

¶14The Appeal is allowed in above terms.

¶15Pending Applications also stand disposed of.

(G.P. MITTAL) JUDGE OCTOBER 18, 2012 vk

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 18th October, 2012 + MAC.APP. 187/2012 TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD...... Appellant Through Mr. Sameer Nandwani, Adv. versus SMT. SHOSHI DEVI & ORS ..... Respondents Through Mr. Dilip Singh, Adv for R-1 to R-7. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL