MAC.APP./109/2012 of SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs MANBHAWTA DEVI & ORS
Parties
- SRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD (PETITIONER)
- MANBHAWTA DEVI & ORS (RESPONDENT)
Cites (1 resolved of 3 detected)
Full text
solid underline = linked page · dashed underline = case is in our corpus, page not published yet · dotted red = recognized reference, not in our corpus
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ MAC. APP. 109/2012
Date of decision: 24[th] August, 2012
SRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD...... Appellant Through: Mr. Sameer Nandwani, Adv.
versus
MANBHAWTA DEVI & ORS. ..... Respondents Through Mr. Pankaj Kumar Dewal, Adv. for R-1 to 4. (the Claimants).
+ MAC. APP. 112/2012
SRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD...... Appellant Through: Mr. Sameer Nandwani, Adv.
versus
VEENA DEVI & ORS. ..... Respondents Through Mr. Pankaj Kumar Dewal, Adv. for R-1 to 6. (the Claimants).
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
J U M N T
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
1.These two Appeals arise out of common judgment dated 16.11.2011 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) whereby compensation of `11,26,712/- was awarded in MAC APP.112/2012 (Suit No.498/2010) and compensation of `14,42,768/- was awarded in MAC APP.109/2012 (Suit No.497/2010). passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) whereby compensation of `11,26,712/- was awarded in MAC APP.112/2012 (Suit No.498/2010) and compensation of `14,42,768/- was awarded in MAC APP.109/2012 (Suit No.497/2010).
2.It is urged by the learned counsel for the Appellant Insurance Company that in the absence of any evidence with regard to the bright future prospects, the Claimants were not entitled to addition of 50% in the deceased’s income. It is stated that at the most, an increase of 30% could have been granted on the basis of Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors., 2012 (4) SCALE 559.that in the absence of any evidence with regard to the bright future prospects, the Claimants were not entitled to addition of 50% in the deceased’s income. It is stated that at the most, an increase of 30% could have been granted on the basis of Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors., 2012 (4) SCALE 559.
3.The learned counsel for the Appellant concedes that the Claimants were entitled to an increase of 30% only. entitled to an increase of 30% only.
4.On applying Santosh Devi, the loss of dependency in MAC APP.109/2012 comes to `12,07,065/- (6448/- + 30% x 3/4 x 12 x 16) instead of ` 13,92,768/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal. APP.109/2012 comes to `12,07,065/- (6448/- + 30% x 3/4 x 12 x 16) instead of ` 13,92,768/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal.
5.The loss of dependency in MAC APP.112/2012 comes to `9,33,150/- (5278/- + 30% x 2/3 x 12 x 17) instead of `10,76,712/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal. (5278/- + 30% x 2/3 x 12 x 17) instead of `10,76,712/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal.
6.The overall compensation thus stands reduced from `14,42,768/- to`12,57,065/- in MAC APP.109/2012 and from ` 11,26,712/- to `9,83,150/- in MAC APP.112/2012. `12,57,065/- in MAC APP.109/2012 and from ` 11,26,712/- to `9,83,150/- in MAC APP.112/2012.
7.The compensation as awarded shall be released in favour of the Claimants in terms of the order passed by the Claims Tribunal. Claimants in terms of the order passed by the Claims Tribunal.
8.The excess amount of `1,85,703/- and `1,43,562/- respectively shall be refunded to the Appellant Insurance Company. refunded to the Appellant Insurance Company.
9.The statutory deposit of `25,000/- each shall be refunded to the Appellant Insurance Company. Insurance Company.
10.Both the Appeals are allowed in above terms.
11.Pending Applications also stand disposed of.
AUGUST 24, 2012
(G.P. MITTAL) JUDGE