Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1890 (DEL)

India Assurance Co. v. Santosh Choudhary

2012-05-17

G.P.MITTAL

body2012
Judgment : G. P. MITTAL, J. 1. The Appellant New India Assurance Company Limited impugns a judgment dated 20.12.2007 whereby a compensation of Rs.16 lacs was awarded to Respondents No.1 to 5 for the injuries suffered by Late Satyapal Choudhary in a motor accident which occurred on 14.10.2002 and ultimately resulted in his death on 14.02.2004 i.e. after about a period of 16 months of the accident. 2. In the entire compensation, except the compensation of Rs.2,92,760/- awarded towards loss of dependency, no other compensation has been disputed. The compensation of Rs.16 lacs was largely awarded towards the medical treatment of the deceased. The compensation awarded is tabulated hereunder:- Sl. No. Compensation under various heads Awarded by the Claims Tribunal 1. Compensation of Loss of Dependency Rs.2,92,760/- 2. Medical Expenses Rs. 9,05,204/- 3. Other Expenses Rs. 2,82,890/- 4. Love & Affection & Loss of Estate Rs. 10,000/- 5. Loss of Consortium Rs. 5,000/- 6. Funeral Expenses Rs. 2,000/-Compensation towards Attendant charges, Rs. 1,02,146/- 7. Special Diet & Conveyance Total Rs. 16,00,000/- 3. The only ground raised during the hearing of the Appeal is that the deceased had an income of Rs.87,829/- from his business (as per Income Tax Return filed for the Assessment Year 2001-02). After the death of deceased Satyapal Choudhary, the business was being run by his son Narender Kumar Choudhary as admitted by the deceased’s widow (PW-1) in her cross-examination. Thus, there was no loss of dependency. It is urged that it was only the deceased’s widow who was financially dependent. The Claims Tribunal ought to have awarded the compensation on the basis of supervisory services rendered by the deceased in running the shop and deduction of 50% should have been made towards personal and living expenses of the deceased as against one-third made by the Claims Tribunal. To support his contention, learned counsel for the Appellant relies on New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Yogesh Devi & Ors. 2012 (2) SCALE 409. 4. I have gone through the cross-examination of Smt. Santosh Choudhary (PW-1). On the question of running of the shop after the death of her husband, she deposed as under:- “… My husband was aged 70 years at the time of accident. He was not suffering from high blood pressure, sugar or any other disease. 2012 (2) SCALE 409. 4. I have gone through the cross-examination of Smt. Santosh Choudhary (PW-1). On the question of running of the shop after the death of her husband, she deposed as under:- “… My husband was aged 70 years at the time of accident. He was not suffering from high blood pressure, sugar or any other disease. My husband was running a book store with the name of Piccadily Book Stall at 64 Shankar Market, Connaught Place. My son Narender used to sit in a shop alongwith my husband. Today, my son Narender who is aged 48 years is running the shop but because of the death of my husband, the business has come down considerably. After the death of my husband, Narender has taken control of the shop and is not giving any financial help and I am not aware how much, he is earning from the said shop. It is wrong to suggest that my husband was earning Rs.15,000/- p.m. The shop in Shankar Market was owned by my husband. It is correct that after the death of my husband I (sic) alongwith my children have become the owner of the said shop..” 5. Satyapal Choudhary died after a prolonged treatment for 16 months in G.B. Pant Hospital and Apollo Hospital. It is true that it was only the widow who was financially dependent on the deceased. Santosh Choudhary’s testimony that although she became joint owner of the shop along with her son, yet she was not being paid anything by her son was not rebutted by producing any evidence. 6. In Yogesh Devi (supra) the value of the Managerial Services rendered in the management of the three buses was taken as Rs.10,000/- per month to award the compensation to the legal representatives of the deceased who owned those three buses. In this case, although the deceased’s income was claimed to be Rs.15,000/- per month from his business, but it was proved to be only Rs.7319/- per month on the basis of the Income Tax Return. 7. Since the son who came in possession of the shop did not provide any financial assistance to his mother (widow of the deceased), she was entitled to compensation on the basis of the deceased’s income of Rs. 7319/- per month. 7. Since the son who came in possession of the shop did not provide any financial assistance to his mother (widow of the deceased), she was entitled to compensation on the basis of the deceased’s income of Rs. 7319/- per month. Normally, when the dependent is just one, deduction of 50% would be made towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased. 8. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case that the deceased lost her husband at a very old age and the fact that compensation of just Rs.10,000/- has been awarded towards loss of love and affection and loss to estate, a sum of Rs.5,000/-towards loss of consortium and Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses, I would not interfere with the award of compensation of Rs.2,92,760/- towards the loss of dependency. 9. The Appeal therefore has to fail; the same is accordingly dismissed. 10. The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- be refunded to the Appellant Insurance Company. 11. Pending application also stands disposed of.