ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. POONAM AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mahesh Kumar, then aged 33 years old, working with M/s. Tiger Sports Marketing Pvt. Ltd. as Manager (Finance) at a salary of Rs. 25,250/- p.m. (Ex. PW3/1), suffered injuries in a motor vehicular accident that took place on 04.01.2007 in the area of Chirag Delhi Flyover at about 00.40 hours and died in the consequence, the accident involving negligent driving of a vehicle bearing registration no.UP- 2IV-1264 admittedly insured against third party risk with the appellant / Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (appellant in MACA 91/2009). On the accident claim case (petition no.112/07) instituted by his wife and four other members of the family dependent on him, they being first to fifth respondents in the said appeal (MACA 91/2009) and appellants in cross appeal (MACA 673/2017), the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Tribunal) held inquiry and, by judgment dated 07.08.2008, accepted the case of death having been caused due to negligent driving of the above mentioned vehicle. The Tribunal awarded compensation in the total sum of Rs. 41,50,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% p.a., the said amount inclusive of Rs. 50,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs. 1 Lakh towards loss of love and affection and Rs. 10,000/- towards funeral expenses, the balance, being on account of loss of dependency, it having been calculated after adding the element of future prospects and, rightly so, on the income of Rs. 30,000/- but after deduction of one-third towards personal expenses and applying the multiplier of 17.

(2.) The insurer is in appeal and challenges the impugned judgment on the ground that the deceased was riding motor cycle bearing registration no.DL-3SR-5386 and was himself negligent in driving. It also questions the computation of compensation pointing out that the multiplier of 16 should have been invoked, this on the basis of ruling in Sarla Verma and Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr., 2009 6 SCC 121 .

(3.) Per contra, by cross appeal, the claimants have submitted that the non-pecuniary heads of damages have not been properly taken care of and that deduction should have been made to the extent of one- fourth. It is also pointed out that in computing the income, the tribunal had taken the salary of Rs. 20,000/- ignoring the salary proved by PW-3.