{"id":243776,"date":"2008-09-05T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-09-04T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-sunita-jain-ors-vs-shri-ram-pal-ors-on-5-september-2008"},"modified":"2018-04-27T05:02:05","modified_gmt":"2018-04-26T23:32:05","slug":"smt-sunita-jain-ors-vs-shri-ram-pal-ors-on-5-september-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-sunita-jain-ors-vs-shri-ram-pal-ors-on-5-september-2008","title":{"rendered":"Smt.Sunita Jain & Ors. vs Shri Ram Pal & Ors. on 5 September, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court<\/div>\n
Smt.Sunita Jain & Ors. vs Shri Ram Pal & Ors. on 5 September, 2008<\/div>\n
Author: V.B.Gupta<\/div>\n
*       HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI\n\n                      FAO No.363 of 1996\n\n%             Judgment reserved on: 26th July, 2008\n\n              Judgment delivered on: 5th September, 2008\n\n\nSmt.Sunita Jain,\nWidow of Late Sh.Suil Kumar Jain\n\n2.Miss Surbhi jain\nD\/o Late Sh.Sunil Kumar Jain\n\n3.Master Abhishek Jain\nS\/o Late Sh.Sunil Kumar Jain\n\n(Appellant No. 2 and 3 being minors\nThrough her mother\/next friend\/natural\nGuardian, appellant No.1)\nAll r\/o House No.52, Block A\nDouble Storey Quarters,\nPatel Nagar-II,\nGhaziabad, U.P.                   ....Appellant\n\n                     Through: Mr.Ashok Bhalla, Adv.\n\n                     Versus\n\n1.Shri Ram Pal,\nSon of Sh.Shiv Lal,\nR\/o Village & Post Office Badli\nDelhi.\n\n2.Sh.Om Prakash Ved prakash\n49, Laxmi Bai Nagar Market\nNew Delhi.\n\n3.M\/s National Insurance Co.Ltd.\n\nFAO No.363 of 1996                               Page 1 of 19\n Divisional Office-14, (351400)\n13\/32, W.E.A. Arya Samaj Road,\nKarol Bagh, New Delhi-110005.          ...Respondents.\n\n                     Through: Ms.Manjusha Wadhwa with\n                              Ms.Gagandeep Kaur, Adv. for\n                              respondent No.3.\n\nCoram:\nHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.B. GUPTA\n\n1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may\n   be allowed to see the judgment?                       Yes\n\n2. To be referred to Reporter or not?                    Yes\n\n3. Whether the judgment should be reported\n   in the Digest?                                        Yes\n\nV.B.Gupta, J.\n<\/pre>\n
        The present appeal under Section 173 of the<\/p>\n
Motors Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short as \u201eAct\u201f) has been<\/p>\n
filed on behalf of the appellant for enhancement of the<\/p>\n
compensation to Rs. 35 lacs with costs through out and<\/p>\n
interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of filing of the<\/p>\n
petition till date.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
2.     Brief facts of this case are that on 11th July, 1990,<\/p>\n
Sunil Kumar Jain (since deceased) was going to his<\/p>\n
office on his two wheeler scooter No.DHE-6718.                  At<\/p>\n
FAO No.363 of 1996                               Page 2 of 19<\/span>
\n about 9.05 a.m., when he was reached National<\/p>\n
Highway, Nizamuddin Bridge (near Pole No.41) at a<\/p>\n
slow speed and was on his left side, a bus No.DEP-<\/p>\n
3898 came from behind and hit the scooter of Sunil<\/p>\n
Kumar Jain.           As a result of forceful impact on the<\/p>\n
scooter, deceased was thrown off on the road and he<\/p>\n
was crushed under the front wheel of the offending<\/p>\n
bus. He died on the spot.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
3.     This accident occurred due to rash and negligent<\/p>\n
driving on the part of the driver of the offending bus<\/p>\n
respondent No.1.           The bus is owned by respondent<\/p>\n
No.2 and insured with respondent No.3.<\/p>\n
4.     The case of the appellant is that deceased was<\/p>\n
working as a Company Secretary with M\/s Montari<\/p>\n
Industries Ltd. and was drawing a monthly income of<\/p>\n
Rs.9,500\/-.          It is further stated that deceased was a<\/p>\n
talented young professional. He was M.A.LL.B and he<\/p>\n
was holding a Diploma in Personal and Industrial<\/p>\n
Management. By virtue of his qualification, deceased<\/p>\n
FAO No.363 of 1996                                 Page 3 of 19<\/span>
\n would have risen to the position of a Chief Executive in<\/p>\n
a large industrial undertaking and would have earned<\/p>\n
the income of Rs.25,000\/- per month, for at least 30<\/p>\n
years.       The claimants have assessed the loss of<\/p>\n
dependency           at   Rs.10,000\/-   per     month    and     have<\/p>\n
claimed       compensation        of    Rs.30    lacs.       Further<\/p>\n
compensation of Rs.5 lacs has been claimed on account<\/p>\n
of pain and agony, loss of happy and comfortable life,<\/p>\n
loss of enjoyment, etc.<\/p>\n
5.     All the respondents filed their written statements<\/p>\n
before the trial court and contested the claim petition.<\/p>\n
6.     Vide impugned judgment dated 7th December,<\/p>\n
1995 an award for a sum of Rs.7,45,920\/- was passed<\/p>\n
in    favour         of   the   appellants      and   against       the<\/p>\n
respondents. Appellants were also awarded interest @<\/p>\n
12% per annum from the date of filing of the petition<\/p>\n
to the date of its realization.\n<\/p>\n
7.     Being aggrieved with the order of the Tribunal,<\/p>\n
the appellants have filed the present appeal seeking<\/p>\n
enhancement of the compensation.\n<\/p>\n
FAO No.363 of 1996                                       Page 4 of 19<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
 8.     It has been contended by learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
appellants that the Tribunal has wrongly taken the<\/p>\n
monthly income of the deceased as Rs.5,550\/-. In fact<\/p>\n
as per the case of the appellants, the deceased was<\/p>\n
drawing a monthly salary of Rs.9,500\/- per month plus<\/p>\n
other perquisites. The appellant has proved on record<\/p>\n
the last drawn salary certificate of the deceased. The<\/p>\n
total computation of this salary certificate of the<\/p>\n
deceased are follows:-\n<\/p>\n
Basic salary                           Rs.4,600\/- p.m.\n\nCompany Lease                          Rs.2,750\/- p.m.\nAccommodations\n\nConveyance allowance                   Rs.1,200\/- p.m.\n\nPersonal Pay                           Rs. 600\/- p.m.\n\nEntertainment allowance             Rs. 350\/- p.m.\n                                    -------------------\n       Total                        Rs.9,500\/-p.m.\n                                    -------------------\n<\/pre>\n
       Plus other perquisites and monetary benefits
\n       as per Rules of Company.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
9.     The Tribunal took into consideration only the<\/p>\n
basic pay, personal pay and entertainment allowance.<\/p>\n
FAO No.363 of 1996                               Page 5 of 19<\/span>
\n It did not take into consideration the company lease<\/p>\n
accommodation and conveyance allowance, which it<\/p>\n
ought to have taken.\n<\/p>\n
10. Further, it is contended that future prospects of<\/p>\n
the deceased were not considered at all by the<\/p>\n
Tribunal though, the claimants have mentioned about<\/p>\n
the same in the claim petition and PW1 & PW2 have<\/p>\n
also deposed about the same.\n<\/p>\n
11. On the other hand, it has been argued by learned<\/p>\n
counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company that<\/p>\n
the Tribunal has rightly taken the monthly income of<\/p>\n
deceased as Rs.5,500\/- which is as per documents<\/p>\n
Ex.PW-1\/C and which gives the break up of the salary<\/p>\n
of the deceased as on 3rd May, 1990.        The Tribunal<\/p>\n
rightly did not include conveyance allowance, leave<\/p>\n
travel      allowance    and    medical    reimbursement<\/p>\n
allowance, which was personal to the deceased and<\/p>\n
which could not be formed part of the dependency.<\/p>\n
12. Regarding future prospects, it is contended by<\/p>\n
learned        counsel   for   the   respondent-Insurance<\/p>\n
FAO No.363 of 1996                             Page 6 of 19<\/span>
\n Company that PW-2 who is the widow of the deceased<\/p>\n
in her cross-examination has admitted that there was<\/p>\n
no time bound promotion. Thus, the Tribunal rightly,<\/p>\n
did not consider the future prospects.<\/p>\n
13. Learned counsel for the respondent in support of<\/p>\n
her     contention   has   cited   Oriental   Insurance<\/p>\n
Company Limited v. Jashuben and Ors.,<\/a> 2008<\/p>\n
INDLAW SC 210, in which it has been laid down that;<\/p>\n
          “What would have been the income of
\n          deceased on the date of retirement, was
\n          not a relevant factor in the light of
\n          particular facts of this case.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
14. Regarding the plea that the Tribunal has not<\/p>\n
taken into consideration conveyance allowance and<\/p>\n
company lease accommodation to compute the loss of<\/p>\n
earnings, appellant no. 1 has appeared in the witness<\/p>\n
box and had stated that the deceased was drawing a<\/p>\n
salary of Rs.12,000\/- per month at the time of his<\/p>\n
death.\n<\/p>\n
FAO No.363 of 1996                            Page 7 of 19<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
 15. However, in the petition, the income of the<\/p>\n
deceased at the time of accident has been mentioned,<\/p>\n
as Rs.10,000\/- approximately.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
16. The certificate Ex. PW2\/C issued by Montari<\/p>\n
Industries Ltd. gives the break-up of salary as on<\/p>\n
03.05.90 in respect of the deceased as follows:-<\/p>\n
(i) Basic Pay                 :         Rs.4,600\/-\n\n(ii) Personal Pay             :         Rs.600\/-\n\n(iii) Others                  :         Rs.350\n                                        (Entertainment\n                                        allowance)\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
17. The certificate further states that the deceased<\/p>\n
was     entitled     for   company   lease   accommodation,<\/p>\n
conveyance reimbursement and annual perquisites like<\/p>\n
LTA, Medical reimbursement as applicable at his level<\/p>\n
in the company.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
18. The Tribunal while assessing the compensation,<\/p>\n
has taken the monthly income of the deceased at<\/p>\n
Rs.5,550\/- as per certificate issued by the employer.<\/p>\n
FAO No.363 of 1996                                 Page 8 of 19<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
 19. Reverting back to the contentions raised by the<\/p>\n
counsel      for     the   appellant   claiming   inclusion        of<\/p>\n
company         lease      accommodation    and    conveyance<\/p>\n
allowances while considering the net income of the<\/p>\n
deceased, the recent decision of the Apex Court in<\/p>\n
National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Indira Srivastava<\/p>\n
and others<\/a>, 2008 ACJ 614, will clinch the entire<\/p>\n
controversy involved in the present appeal.<\/p>\n
20. In the above said case, the Apex Court has<\/p>\n
observed as under;\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
              “The term ‘income’ has different
\n              connotations for different purposes. A
\n              court of law, having regard to the
\n              change in societal conditions must
\n              consider the question not only having
\n              regard to pay packet the employee
\n              carries home at the end of the month
\n              but also other perks which are
\n              beneficial to the members of the
\n              entire family. Loss caused to the
\n              family on a death of a near and dear
\n              one can hardly be compensated in
\n              monitory terms.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              Section 168 of the Act uses the word
\n              ‘just compensation’ which, in our
\n              opinion, should be assigned a broad
\n              meaning. We cannot, in determining<\/p>\n
FAO No.363 of 1996                                  Page 9 of 19<\/span>
\n               the issue involved in the matter, lose
\n              sight of the fact that the private
\n              sector     companies    in   place    of
\n              introducing a pension scheme takes
\n              recourse to payment of contributory
\n              provident fund, gratuity and other
\n              perks to attract the people who are
\n              efficient and hard-working. Different
\n              offers made to an officer by the
\n              employer, same may be either for the
\n              benefit of the employee himself or for
\n              the benefit of entire family. In some
\n              facilities are being provided whereby
\n              the entire family stands to benefit, the
\n              same, in our opinion, must be held to
\n              be relevant for the purpose of
\n              computation of total income on the
\n              basis     whereof   the    amount     of
\n              compensation payable for the death of
\n              the kith and kin of the applicants is
\n              required to be determined.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              The Apex Court further observed;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              “That if some facilities are being
\n              provided by the employer whereby
\n              the entire family stands to benefit, the
\n              same must be held to be relevant for
\n              the purpose of computation of total
\n              income of the deceased”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
21. The          Andhra     Pradesh     High     Court            in<\/p>\n
S.Narayanamma             and   Ors.    v.   Secretary        to<\/p>\n
Government of India and Ors., II (2002) ACC 582,<\/p>\n
following Helen C. Rebello (Mrs.) and others v.<\/p>\n
FAO No.363 of 1996                                Page 10 of 19<\/span>
\n Maharashtra State Road transport Corporation<\/p>\n
and another, II (1998) ACC 512, held that;<\/p>\n
              “The contributions made by the
\n              deceased-employee               towards
\n              Employees’ Provident Fund, Life
\n              Insurance (LIC), Group Insurance
\n              and the deductions shown in the
\n              salary certificate of the deceased-
\n              employee towards the vehicle loan
\n              instalment, benefit fund, and also the
\n              amounts received by the deceased-
\n              employee towards interim Relief,
\n              Special Pay, Dearness Allowance,
\n              House Rent Allowance, need not be
\n              deducted from the gross salary of the
\n              deceased     for     ascertaining   the
\n              income,           because           the
\n              contributions\/deductions          made
\n              towards,     E.P.F.,    L.I.C.,   Group
\n              Insurance and Benefit Fund would be
\n              beneficial to the family of the
\n              deceased-employee and it would be
\n              the estate of the deceased.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
22. Thus, in view of the above discussions, the<\/p>\n
Tribunal has not taken proper care while deducting the<\/p>\n
amounts        from   the   salary   of   the   deceased.     The<\/p>\n
deductions made by the tribunal from the salary such<\/p>\n
as company lease accommodation cannot be deducted<\/p>\n
while computing the net monthly earnings of the<\/p>\n
deceased.\n<\/p>\n
FAO No.363 of 1996                                  Page 11 of 19<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
 23. In so far as his basic salary of Rs.4,600\/- p.m.,<\/p>\n
personal pay of Rs.600\/- p.m. and entertainment<\/p>\n
allowance of Rs.350\/- p.m. are concerned, there cannot<\/p>\n
be any dispute.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
24. The company lease accommodation of Rs.2,750\/-<\/p>\n
per month had to be considered by the Tribunal and it<\/p>\n
is not such an allowance, which should be reduced<\/p>\n
while computing the net monthly earnings of the<\/p>\n
deceased.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
25. However, conveyance allowance is exclusively<\/p>\n
personal to his professional expenditure and it has to<\/p>\n
be ignored.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
26. The above findings of the tribunal are contrary to<\/p>\n
the principle of ‘just compensation’ enunciated by the<\/p>\n
Supreme         Court   in   the   judgment   in   Divisional<\/p>\n
Controller, KSRTC v. Mahadeva Shetty, AIR<\/a> 2003<\/p>\n
SC 4172, where the Apex Court has observed as<\/p>\n
under;\n<\/p>\n
FAO No.363 of 1996                                 Page 12 of 19<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
               “It has to be kept in view that the
\n              Tribunal constituted under the Act as
\n              provided in Section 168 is required to
\n              make an award determining the
\n              amount of compensation which to it
\n              appears to be “just”. It has to be
\n              borne in mind that compensation for
\n              loss of limbs or life can hardly be
\n              weighed in golden scales. Bodily
\n              injury is nothing but a deprivation
\n              which entitles the claimant to
\n              damages. The quantum of damages
\n              fixed should be in accordance with
\n              the injury. An injury may bring about
\n              many consequences like loss of
\n              earning capacity, loss of mental
\n              pleasure       and      many      such
\n              consequential     losses.   A   person
\n              becomes entitled to damages for
\n              mental and physical loss, his or her
\n              life may have been shortened or that
\n              he or she cannot enjoy life, which has
\n              been curtailed because of physical
\n              handicap. The normal expectation of
\n              life is impaired. But at the same time
\n              it has to be borne in mind that the
\n              compensation is not expected to be a
\n              windfall for the victim. Statutory
\n              provisions clearly indicate that the
\n              compensation must be “just” and it
\n              cannot be a bonanza; not a source of
\n              profit but the same should not be a
\n              pittance. The courts and tribunals
\n              have a duty to weigh the various
\n              factors and quantify the amount of
\n              compensation, which should be just.
\n              What would be “just” compensation is
\n              a vexed question. There can be no
\n              golden rule applicable to all cases for<\/p>\n
FAO No.363 of 1996                               Page 13 of 19<\/span>
\n               measuring the value of human life or
\n              a limb. Measure of damages cannot
\n              be arrived at by precise mathematical
\n              calculations. It would depend upon
\n              the      particular       facts       and
\n              circumstances, and attending peculiar
\n              or special features, if any. Every
\n              method     or    mode      adopted     for
\n              assessing compensation has to be
\n              considered in the background of “just”
\n              compensation which is the pivotal
\n              consideration. Though by use of the
\n              expression “which appears to it to be
\n              just”, a wide discretion is vested in
\n              the Tribunal, the determination has to
\n              be rational, to be done by a judicious
\n              approach and not the outcome of
\n              whims,       wild       guesses       and
\n              arbitrariness. The expression “just”
\n              denotes equitability, fairness and
\n              reasonableness,          and         non-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              arbitrariness. If it is not so, it cannot
\n              be just. (See Helen C. Rebello v.
\n              Maharashtra State Road Transport
\n              Corporation &<\/a> another, II (1998) ACC\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              512.)”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
27. Thus, taking the monthly salary of deceased at<\/p>\n
Rs.8,300\/- per month (Basic salary Rs.4,600\/- p.m.;<\/p>\n
Company         Lease   Accommodation       Rs.2,750\/-      p.m.;<\/p>\n
Personal Pay Rs.600\/- p.m.; Entertainment allowance<\/p>\n
Rs.350\/- p.m.) and after deducting 1\/3rd           amount for<\/p>\n
personal expenses, the net salary comes to Rs.5,534\/-<\/p>\n
FAO No.363 of 1996                                  Page 14 of 19<\/span>
\n per month, which is rounded off as Rs.5,500\/- per<\/p>\n
month. Thus, applying the multiplier of 16, the total<\/p>\n
dependency comes to Rs.5,500x12x16=Rs.10,56,000\/-.<\/p>\n
28. As regards the future prospects, the Apex Court<\/p>\n
in    Oriental       Insurance    Company     Limited            v.<\/p>\n
Jashuben and Others<\/a> (supra), as cited by the<\/p>\n
respondent counsel has observed as under;<\/p>\n
              “Salary would be revised or not was
\n              not known at that part of time. Only
\n              because such salary was revised at a
\n              later point of time, the same by itself
\n              would not have been a factor which
\n              could    have     been    taken    into
\n              consideration.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              The    amount      of    compensation
\n              indisputably should be determined
\n              having regard to the pecuniary loss
\n              caused to the dependants by reason of
\n              the death of the victim. It was
\n              necessary to consider the earnings of
\n              the deceased at the time of the
\n              accident. Of course, future prospect is
\n              not   out    of   bound     for   such
\n              consideration. But the same should be
\n              founded on some legal principle.
\n              The Apex Court has further observed
\n              as under;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              “We, therefore, are of the opinion that
\n              what would have been the income of
\n              the deceased on the date of<\/p>\n
FAO No.363 of 1996                               Page 15 of 19<\/span>
\n               retirement         was   not    a    relevant
\n              factor…….”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
29. In        Oriental      Insurance        Co.   Ltd.     v. Smt.<\/p>\n
Kailash Mehta, 1993 ACJ 970, the Gauhati High<\/p>\n
Court held that;\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       “It is well settled that deduction from the
\n       calculated amount of compensation to the
\n       maximum extent of 30 per cent thereof is to
\n       be made because of uncertainty of life and
\n       lump sum payment of compensation.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
30. In the present case, no such deduction have been<\/p>\n
made on the account of uncertainty of life.<\/p>\n
31. Hence,           the    contentions       regarding         future<\/p>\n
prospects made by the counsel for Appellants are<\/p>\n
rejected.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
32. Accordingly, the award passed by the learned<\/p>\n
Tribunal is modified to the extent that appellants are<\/p>\n
entitled      to     a   total    of   sum    Rs.10,56,000\/-          as<\/p>\n
compensation, which is just and fair.<\/p>\n
33. The appellants have also claimed interest @ 18%<\/p>\n
p.a. from the date of filing of the petition till date.<\/p>\n
FAO No.363 of 1996                                        Page 16 of 19<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
 34. The Tribunal has awarded the interest @ 12% p.a.<\/p>\n
from the date of filing of the petition to the date of its<\/p>\n
realization.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
35. Section 171 of the Act provides for the award of<\/p>\n
interest where any claim is allowed. It reads as under;<\/p>\n
              “Where any Claims Tribunal allows a
\n              claim for compensation made under
\n              this Act, such Tribunal may direct
\n              that in addition to the amount of
\n              compensation simple interest shall
\n              also be paid at such rate and from
\n              such date not earlier than the date of
\n              making the claim as it may specify in
\n              this behalf.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
36. Though this Section confers a discretion on the<\/p>\n
Tribunal to award interest, but the same is meant to be<\/p>\n
exercised in cases where the claimant can claim the<\/p>\n
same as a matter of right.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
37. While determining rate of interest and period for<\/p>\n
which the same is sought to be granted, the Tribunal<\/p>\n
shall give due consideration to the fact as to whether<\/p>\n
the claim proceedings sought to be lingered either by<\/p>\n
the claimant or owner or insurer, so that it may act as<\/p>\n
FAO No.363 of 1996                               Page 17 of 19<\/span>
\n deterrent against the earning party and compensatory<\/p>\n
for the other.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
38. The present appeal was filed in the year 1996 but<\/p>\n
the appellant did not take any steps for getting<\/p>\n
respondents served till 2008. So, this delay of 12 years<\/p>\n
in the disposal of the present appeal is clearly<\/p>\n
attributable to the appellants.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
39. It is well-settled that \u201edelay and laches\u201f cannot<\/p>\n
command premium.        Thus, the appellants are not<\/p>\n
entitled to any interest for the period for which this<\/p>\n
appeal was pending before this Court.<\/p>\n
40. All the Motor Accident Tribunals should follow the<\/p>\n
above guidelines and at the time of awarding interest,<\/p>\n
they should not lose sight of the fact, as to whether<\/p>\n
claimant or owner or insurer, has caused delay in the<\/p>\n
trial.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
41. Since, the award has been enhanced in this case,<\/p>\n
the appellants are awarded interest @ 8% p.a. for the<\/p>\n
FAO No.363 of 1996                           Page 18 of 19<\/span>
\n enhanced portion only, from the date of filing of the<\/p>\n
petition in the Tribunal till the date of judgment of the<\/p>\n
Tribunal.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
42. This additional compensation shall be payable by<\/p>\n
respondent no.3\/Insurance Company within four weeks<\/p>\n
from today, failing which the Insurance company shall<\/p>\n
be liable to pay the interest @ 8% p.a., till the time the<\/p>\n
additional compensation is paid.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
43. Accordingly, the appeal stands allowed to the<\/p>\n
above extent.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
44. Registrar General of this Court, shall send copy of<\/p>\n
this judgment to all the Tribunals for their information<\/p>\n
and guidance.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
45. No orders as to costs.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
46. Trial court record be sent back.\n<\/p>\n
September 05, 2008                  V.B.GUPTA, J.\n<\/p>\n
Bisht<\/p>\n
FAO No.363 of 1996                             Page 19 of 19<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court Smt.Sunita Jain & Ors. vs Shri Ram Pal & Ors. on 5 September, 2008 Author: V.B.Gupta * HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI FAO No.363 of 1996 % Judgment reserved on: 26th July, 2008 Judgment delivered on: 5th September, 2008 Smt.Sunita Jain, Widow of Late Sh.Suil Kumar Jain 2.Miss Surbhi jain […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[14,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-243776","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-delhi-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSmt.Sunita Jain & Ors. vs Shri Ram Pal & Ors. on 5 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-sunita-jain-ors-vs-shri-ram-pal-ors-on-5-september-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Smt.Sunita Jain & Ors. vs Shri Ram Pal & Ors. on 5 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-sunita-jain-ors-vs-shri-ram-pal-ors-on-5-september-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-09-04T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-04-26T23:32:05+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"15 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-sunita-jain-ors-vs-shri-ram-pal-ors-on-5-september-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-sunita-jain-ors-vs-shri-ram-pal-ors-on-5-september-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Smt.Sunita Jain & Ors. vs Shri Ram Pal & Ors. on 5 September, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-09-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-04-26T23:32:05+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-sunita-jain-ors-vs-shri-ram-pal-ors-on-5-september-2008\"},\"wordCount\":2854,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Delhi High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-sunita-jain-ors-vs-shri-ram-pal-ors-on-5-september-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-sunita-jain-ors-vs-shri-ram-pal-ors-on-5-september-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-sunita-jain-ors-vs-shri-ram-pal-ors-on-5-september-2008\",\"name\":\"Smt.Sunita Jain & Ors. vs Shri Ram Pal & Ors. on 5 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-09-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-04-26T23:32:05+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-sunita-jain-ors-vs-shri-ram-pal-ors-on-5-september-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-sunita-jain-ors-vs-shri-ram-pal-ors-on-5-september-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-sunita-jain-ors-vs-shri-ram-pal-ors-on-5-september-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Smt.Sunita Jain & Ors. vs Shri Ram Pal & Ors. on 5 September, 2008\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Smt.Sunita Jain & Ors. vs Shri Ram Pal & Ors. on 5 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-sunita-jain-ors-vs-shri-ram-pal-ors-on-5-september-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Smt.Sunita Jain & Ors. vs Shri Ram Pal & Ors. on 5 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-sunita-jain-ors-vs-shri-ram-pal-ors-on-5-september-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-09-04T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-04-26T23:32:05+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"15 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-sunita-jain-ors-vs-shri-ram-pal-ors-on-5-september-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-sunita-jain-ors-vs-shri-ram-pal-ors-on-5-september-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Smt.Sunita Jain & Ors. vs Shri Ram Pal & Ors. on 5 September, 2008","datePublished":"2008-09-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-04-26T23:32:05+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-sunita-jain-ors-vs-shri-ram-pal-ors-on-5-september-2008"},"wordCount":2854,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Delhi High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-sunita-jain-ors-vs-shri-ram-pal-ors-on-5-september-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-sunita-jain-ors-vs-shri-ram-pal-ors-on-5-september-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-sunita-jain-ors-vs-shri-ram-pal-ors-on-5-september-2008","name":"Smt.Sunita Jain & Ors. vs Shri Ram Pal & Ors. on 5 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-09-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-04-26T23:32:05+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-sunita-jain-ors-vs-shri-ram-pal-ors-on-5-september-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-sunita-jain-ors-vs-shri-ram-pal-ors-on-5-september-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-sunita-jain-ors-vs-shri-ram-pal-ors-on-5-september-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Smt.Sunita Jain & Ors. vs Shri Ram Pal & Ors. on 5 September, 2008"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/243776","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=243776"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/243776\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=243776"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=243776"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=243776"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}