MAC.APP./830/2011 of ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs RAM SWAROOP & ORS

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ MAC.APP. 830/2011

Date of decision: 9[th ]February, 2012

ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD ..... Appellant

Through: Ms.Suman Bagga, Advocate

versus

RAM SWAROOP & ORS ..... Respondents

Through: Mr. Anshuman Bal, Advocate

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL

J U M N T

G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)

1.The Appellant ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. seeks

reduction of the compensation of `5,07,500/- awarded for the death of Jagdish Prasad who died in an accident on 20.02.2009. death of Jagdish Prasad who died in an accident on 20.02.2009.

2.In the Claim Petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act filed before the Tribunal, the deceased’s salary was claimed to be `39,000/- per annum. Vehicles Act filed before the Tribunal, the deceased’s salary was claimed to be `39,000/- per annum.

3.The Tribunal, however, took the deceased’s income to be `3934/- per month which was the wages of unskilled worker under the Minimum Wages Act and added 50% towards `3934/- per month which was the wages of unskilled worker under the Minimum Wages Act and added 50% towards

Page 1 of 4

inflation; deducted 50% towards personal living expenses and applied the multiplier of ‘17’ to compute the loss of dependency as `3,40,000/-, after adding sum of `7,500/- towards Funeral Expenses, `10,000/- towards Loss of Estate and `1,50,000/- towards Loss of Consortium and Loss of the Love and Affection. Overall compensation of `5,07,500/- was awarded.

The learned counsel for the Appellant submits that the multiplier has to be adopted as per the age of the Claimant or the deceased whichever is higher. It is urged that sum of `1,50,000/- which was awarded towards loss of love and affection and loss of consortium was not permissible in petition u/s 163-A of the Act as Claimants are not required to prove negligence on the part of the driver. multiplier has to be adopted as per the age of the Claimant or the deceased whichever is higher. It is urged that sum of `1,50,000/- which was awarded towards loss of love and affection and loss of consortium was not permissible in petition u/s 163-A of the Act as Claimants are not required to prove negligence on the part of the driver.

The deceased’s income was claimed to be `39,000/- per annum which is almost equal to the minimum wages of an unskilled worker as on the date of the accident. which is almost equal to the minimum wages of an unskilled worker as on the date of the accident.

6.In petition under Section 163-A of the Act, compensation has to be awarded as per the structured formula (Deepal Girishbhai Soni v. United India Insurance Company Limited, (2004) 5 SCC

Page 2 of 4

385; Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Meena Variyal (2007) 5 SCC 428; and Oriental Insurance Company v. Hansrajbhai V. Kodala, (2001) 5 SCC 175).

As per the note appended to the Second Schedule 1/3[rd] of the

deceased’s income was required to be deducted towards the personal and living expenses. The appropriate multiplier when petition under Section 163-A of the Act is filed has to as per Second Schedule which in the instant case would be ‘18’ as the deceased was less than 30 years. The compensation is to be re-computed as under:-

Loss of Dependency: `4,68,000/-(` 39,000/- x 2/3 x18).

Funeral Expenses : `2,000/- Loss to Estate : `2,500/- TOTAL : `4,72,500/-

8.The overall compensation is reduced from `5,07,500/- to `4,72,500.

9.The excess amount along with interest earned, if any, during the

pendency of the Appeal shall be refunded to the Appellant Insurance Company.

Page 3 of 4

10.Statutory deposit of `.25,000/- shall also be refunded.

11.The Appeal is allowed in above terms.

12.No costs.

13.Pending applications also stand disposed of.

FEBRUARY 09, 2012

(G.P. MITTAL) JUDGE

Page 4 of 4