IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:
21. t October, 2016 $~26 * % + MAC.APP. 106/2013 UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. Through: Mr. Brijesh Bagga, Advocate ........ Petitioner
Versus BHARAT SHAH & ORS. ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Navneet Goyal, Advocate for CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA R-1 and 2 JUDGMENT (ORAL) 1. The Appellant has challenged the award of Claims Tribunal whereby compensation of Rs. 11,20,036/- has been awarded to claimants/respondents no.1 and 2. The accident dated 27th January, 2011 resulted in death of 2. Sogarath @ Subharath. The deceased was aged around 23 years at the time of accident. The Claims Tribunal took minimum wages of Rs.5,278/-, added 50% towards future prospects, deducted Rs.3,958/- towards personal expenses and applied multiplier of 18 to compute the loss of dependency at Rs.8,55,036/-. The Claims Tribunal awarded Rs.1 lakh towards loss of love and affection, Rs.1 lakh towards loss of care, attention and expenses, Rs.50,000/- towards loss to estate and Rs. 15,000/- towards funeral expenses. Total compensation awarded is Rs.11,20,036/-. The learned counsel for appellant urged at the time of hearing of 3. that this appeal future prospects was It is further submitted that there is no head of “loss of unwarranted. addition towards the MAC. APP. 106/2013 Page 1 of 1 care, attention and expenses” for which Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs.1 lakh. It is further submitted that multiplier is to be applied according to the age of parents.
4. There is merit in the appellant’s contention that there is no head prescribed in law for granting compensation for “loss of care, attention and expenses” and, therefore, compensation of Rs.1 lakh awarded by Claims Tribunal under this head is liable to be set aside.
5. With respect to other two grounds urged by the learned counsel for the appellant, this court is of the view that reduction below Rs.10 lakhs is not warranted. Reference in this regard may be made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy, AIR2012SC100in which 59 persons died in Uphaar tragedy and the Supreme Court granted compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- to the victims of above 20 years of age and Rs.7,50,000/- to the victims below 20 years of age on the basis of multiplier method. The Supreme Court applied the multiplier of 15 and deducted 1/3rd towards the personal expenses. The income of the victims aged more than 20 years was assumed to be Rs.8,333/- per month and that of victims aged less than 20 years was assumed to be Rs.6,249/- per month. The computation of the compensation awarded by the Supreme Court would be as under :-
"For victims aged more than 20 years:-
"(Rs.8,333/- less 1/3rd)x 12 x 15 = Rs.10 lakhs. For victims aged less than 20 years:-
"(Rs.6249/- less 1/3rd) x 15 = Rs.7.5 lakhs. It is relevant to note that the Uphaar tragedy took place on 13th 6. June, 1997 and the minimum wages at the relevant time were less than MAC. APP. 106/2013 Page 2 of 2 Rs.2600/-. Although there was no proof of the income of the victims, the Supreme Court did not find it proper to apply the minimum wages.
7. This Court has applied the principles laid down in Uphaar tragedy case to compute the compensation in United India Insurance Co. V. Kanwar Lal, 2012 SCC Online Del 2411, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Bal Kishan Pawar, 2012 SCC Online Del 3201, National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Chander Dutt, 2012 SCC Online Del 2412, National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sewa Ram, 2012 SCC Online Del 2413 and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Komal, 2014 ACJ1540 National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Gaje Singh, 2012 ACJ2346and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Bhateri, 2012 SCC Online Del 2409.
8. The appeal is partially allowed and the award amount is reduced from Rs.11,20,036/- to Rs.10 lakhs along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realization.
9. The appellant has deposited entire award amount with the Claims Tribunal which has been released to respondents no.1 and 2 with the restriction of keeping 90% in FDRs for five years with the HDFC Bank, Pitampura Branch. HDFC Bank, Pitampura Branch is directed to give particulars of the FDRs in which the award amount has been kept. HDFC Bank, Pitampura Branch shall not discharge the FDRs without prior permission of this Court. List for directions on 20th December, 2016.... RESPONDENTS
no.1 10. and 2 shall remain present in the court on the next date of hearing along with original FDRs.
11. Copy of this judgment be given dasti to learned counsels for the parties. MAC. APP. 106/2013 Page 3 of 3 12. Copy of this judgment be also sent to HDFC Bank, Pitampura Branch. OCTOBER21 2016 sm J.R. MIDHA, J.
MAC. APP. 106/2013 Page 4 of 4