ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. NIRU @ NIHARIKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The wife and two minor children of the deceased in a motor vehicle accident were before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal for compensation on loss of dependency. The accident occurred on 18/11/1995 when the deceased was travelling in a car which collided with a truck. On the allegation of rash and negligent driving of the truck, the claimants were before the Tribunal seeking compensation of Rs.1,00,00,000.00 which was later amended and enhanced to Rs.1,30,00,000.00. The deceased alongwith his family, the claimants were residing in the United Kingdom. The deceased was a person with several academic achievements working as an Engineer with the British Telecom and was paid salary in Pounds.

(2.) The Tribunal found negligence of the driver of the truck relying on the F.I.R. as also the award passed in a claim petition filed by the driver of the car, wherein negligence was clearly found on the truck driver. The income stood proved and the Tribunal adopted a multiplier of 13 and reduced 1/3rd of the income for personal expenses. Loss of dependency was computed at Rs.78,33,540.00 to which award, Rs.40,000.00 as loss of consortium and Rs.15,000.00 each for loss of estate and funeral expenses were added. The total compensation awarded was Rs.79,04,540.00.

(3.) The Insurance Company filed an appeal before the High Court against the award amounts raising multifarious contentions. It was first contended that the accident occurred only due to the rashness and negligence of the car driver. On the quantum, it was submitted that admittedly the wife married in the year 2002 and the multiplier should have been only 7, taken from the death of the first husband. The exchange rate as adopted by the Tribunal, was also assailed together with the interest granted at the rate of 9%, which it was contended was against the existing interest rates. Specific contention was taken against the long delay in disposing of the claim petition, which was filed in the year 1995 and disposed of in the year 2017. The allegation was that the claimants who were residing in the U.K. were solely responsible for the delay occasioned. We see the said contention having been taken relying on Annexure A-4 produced in the memorandum of SLP filed.