MAC.APP./900/2012 of ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs RANI VERMA & ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ MAC. APP. 900/2012

Date of decision: 1[st] November, 2012

ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. ..... Appellant Through: Ms.Suman Bagga, Advocate Through: Ms.Suman Bagga, Advocate

versus

RANI VERMA & ORS. .... Respondents

Through: Mr.Amit Kumar Pandey, Advocate for R-1 to R-2 1 to R-2

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTALJ U M N T

G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)

1.The Appeal is for reduction of compensation of ` 9,35,580/- awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) in favour of Respondents No.1 and 2 for the death of their son Ankit Chauhan, bachelor, who died in motor vehicle accident, which occurred on 28.11.2010. the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) in favour of Respondents No.1 and 2 for the death of their son Ankit Chauhan, bachelor, who died in motor vehicle accident, which occurred on 28.11.2010.

2.The only ground of challenge raised by the learned counsel for the Appellant Insurance Company is that the multiplier ought to have been applied as per the age of the deceased’s mother. The Claims Tribunal erred in applying the multiplier as per the age of the deceased. Appellant Insurance Company is that the multiplier ought to have been applied as per the age of the deceased’s mother. The Claims Tribunal erred in applying the multiplier as per the age of the deceased.

3.It is well settled that in Claim Petition filed by the legal representatives for the death of person, the multiplier will be as per the age of the deceased or the Claimant, whichever is higher (U.P. State Road Transport Corporation & Ors. v. Trilok Chandra & Ors., (1996) 4 SCC 362). for the death of person, the multiplier will be as per the age of the deceased or the Claimant, whichever is higher (U.P. State Road Transport Corporation & Ors. v. Trilok Chandra & Ors., (1996) 4 SCC 362).

4.The proposition of law is not disputed by the learned counsel for the Respondents. Respondents.

5.In the circumstances, the appropriate multiplier as per age of the deceased’s mother would be ‘15’. Thus the loss of dependency comes to ` 7,54,650/- (6450/- + 30% x 12 x 1/2 x15). deceased’s mother would be ‘15’. Thus the loss of dependency comes to ` 7,54,650/- (6450/- + 30% x 12 x 1/2 x15).

6.A perusal of the impugned judgment shows that sum of ` 10,000/- was awarded towards loss of love and affection. Normally, sum of ` 25,000/- is awarded under this head. The compensation for loss of love and affection is enhanced to ` 25,000/-. awarded towards loss of love and affection. Normally, sum of ` 25,000/- is awarded under this head. The compensation for loss of love and affection is enhanced to ` 25,000/-.

7.The overall compensation thus comes to ` 7,99,650/- which is rounded off to ` 8,00,000/- off to ` 8,00,000/-

8.The excess compensation of ` 1,35,580/- along with proportionate interest and the interest accrued, if any, during the pendency of the Appeal shall be refunded to the Appellant Insurance Company. interest and the interest accrued, if any, during the pendency of the Appeal shall be refunded to the Appellant Insurance Company.

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

10.By an order dated 30.08.2012, the execution of the impugned award was stayed subject to payment of 75% of the award amount. The balance amount, if any, be deposited with the UCO Bank, Delhi High Court Branch. stayed subject to payment of 75% of the award amount. The balance amount, if any, be deposited with the UCO Bank, Delhi High Court Branch.

11.The statutory deposit of `25,000/- be refunded to the Appellant Insurance Company, subject to making up deficiency in the Court fees of ` 734/-. Company, subject to making up deficiency in the Court fees of ` 734/-.

12.The Appeal is allowed in above terms.

13.Pending Applications also stand disposed of.

NOVEMBER 01, 2012 v

(G.P. MITTAL) JUDGE