LAWS(DLH)-2018-1-461

NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. HARGYAN SINGH

Decided On January 22, 2018
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD Appellant
V/S
Hargyan Singh Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sunil, aged 19 years, died in motor vehicular accident that occurred on 20.11.2011, due to negligent driving of Indica Car bearing registration no. UP 16 AT 3669, admittedly insured against third party risk for the period in question with the appellant (insurer). On accident claim case (suit no. 43/2015), instituted on 17.05.2012, by his parents, i.e. first and second respondents (collectively, the claimants), in the wake of detailed accident report (DAR) submitted by the police on the basis of evidence gathered during investigation into corresponding first information report (FIR no. 575/2011), of police station Link Road, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh, the tribunal held inquiry and, by judgment dated 26.12.2016, it awarded compensation in the sum of Rs. 16,00,000/-, directing the insurer to pay with interest @ 8% per annum excluding for certain period, calculating it by including Rs. 13,50,000/- towards loss of dependency, Rs. 1,50,000/- towards loss of love &affection and Rs. 50,000/- each for funeral expenses and loss of estate.

(2.) The insurer by the appeal at hand questions the award on the ground that the loss of dependency is based on wrong assumption that the deceased was earning Rs. 10,000/- per month, there being no basis for such conclusion. It is submitted that future prospects have been wrongly added to the extent of 50%, reference in this regard being made to the ruling of a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court rendered on 31.10.2017 in SLP (C) 25590/2014, National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors. With reference to the same decision exception is also taken to the non-pecuniary heads of damages being excessive.

(3.) Having heard the counsel on both sides and having perused the record, this Court finds substance in the above-noted contentions of the insurer. The income could not be assumed merely on oral word. It is pointed out that even the driving licence of the deceased was not proved to substantiate the fact that he was earning his livelihood as auto rickshaw driver.