ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD v. BALESHWAR & Ors.
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 23 Feb 2012
- Bench
- G P MITTAL
Outcome
Allowed
The Appeal is allowed in above terms
Key paragraphs
- Para 66. MAC. APP. No.1060/2011 SBI, Saket Court Branch shall be disbursed in favour of the First Respondent in terms of the Tribunal’s order. The statutory amount shall also be returned to the Appellant through counsel. The Appeal is allowed in above terms.
Judgment
Through: Mr. J.P.N. Shahi, Advocate ..... Appellant Versus BALESHWAR & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Anuj Jain, Advocate for the Respondents No.1 & 2. Mr. A.K. Goyal, Advocate for Respondent No.4. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL J U D G M E N T G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
The Appellant Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. seeks reduction of compensation of ‘6,13,500/- awarded for the death of Nitant Lakhanpal to the Respondents No.1 & 2 who are mother and brother of the deceased. The contentions raised on behalf of the Appellant are: i) That a sum of ‘50,000/- has been awarded for loss of love and affection which is on the higher side; MAC. APP. No.1060/2011 ii) The interest has been awarded @ 9% per annum which is high.
Loss of love and affection cannot be ‘50,000/-. The Supreme Court in Sunil Sharma v. Bachitar Singh (2011) 11 SCC 425 and in Baby Radhika Gupta v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited (2009) 17 SCC 627 granted only ‘25,000/- (in total to all the claimants) under the head of loss of love and affection. I would follow the same. The compensation under the head of loss of love and affection is reduced from ‘ 50,000/- to ‘25,000/-.
As far as reduction of the interest granted @ 9% is concerned, in Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121, interest was awarded @ 7.5% per annum. The Petition was filed on 15.03.2007 and came to be decided by the impugned judgment on 14.09.2011. Although, I myself have been awarding interest @ 7.5%. Considering the small period of the pendency of the Petition and the fact that the interest rates are firming up, I would not like to interfere in the award of interest @ 9%. The overall compensation stands reduced from ‘6,13,500/- to ‘ 5,88,500/-. The excess amount i.e. ‘25,000/- along with interest, if any, accrued during the pendency of the Appeal shall be returned to the Appellant Insurance Company. The amount deposited with
Operative part
MAC. APP. No.1060/2011 SBI, Saket Court Branch shall be disbursed in favour of the First Respondent in terms of the Tribunal’s order. The statutory amount shall also be returned to the Appellant through counsel. The Appeal is allowed in above terms.
(G.P. MITTAL) JUDGE FEBRUARY 23, 2012 MAC. APP. No.1060/2011
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The Appeal is allowed in above terms
Which court decided this case, and when?
Delhi High Court, on 23 Feb 2012. The bench was G P MITTAL.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.