Delhi High Court
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Renu Jain And Ors. on 12 July, 2006
Equivalent citations: I (2007) ACC 418, 2008 ACJ 329
Author: S K Kaul
Bench: S K Kaul
JUDGMENT
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.
1. The petitioner, United India Insurance Company, has filed the present petition impugning the order of the Motor Accidents' Tribunal determining the compensation on account of the demise of late Dr. Vinod Sharma. Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are wife, daughter and son of the deceased, who were claimants before the Tribunal, while respondent Nos. 4 and 5 are father and mother of the deceased, who were imp leaded before the Tribunal as proforma respondent Nos. 4 and 5.
2. The question raised in the present proceedings is in respect of the formula to be applied in respect of the income of the deceased. The deceased was an MBBS Doctor and had a Diploma in Ophthalmic Medicine and Surgery. At the time of death, the deceased was of 46 years of age. The annual income of the deceased was found to be Rs. 1,12,992/-.
3. While taking into consideration the future prospects of increase of income of the deceased, the multiplier of 3 was applied. It is this aspect which is sought to be impugned by the petitioner.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the multiplier could not have been more than 2 and in this behalf refers to the judgment of the Apex Court in Smt. Sarla Dixit and Am. v. Balwant Yadav and Anr. I (2004) ACC 396 (SC) : AIR 1996 SC 1274. That was a case of a self-employed person where the multiplier of 2 for prospective income was applied. Learned Counsel for the petitioner was specifically asked to point out whether there is any proposition of law laid down in the said judgment that such a multiplier is sacrosanct and no higher multiplier can be applied. Learned Counsel for the petitioner states that this is not so, but the calculation has been made on the basis of multiplier of 2.
5. Learned Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, points out that the aforesaid judgment in Smt. Sarla Dixit's case (supra), has been considered by R.C. Chopra, J. of this Court in Smt. Hussan Bono and Ors. v. Subhash Chand and Ors. 97 (2002) DLT 942 : 11 (2002) ACC 249. After considering the aforesaid judgment and other judgments of the Apex Court, learned Judge observed that the Trial Court ought to take into consideration the prospects of future increase of income. The prospects and future advancement in career and increase in income can be visualised in view of the nature of vocation, age of the deceased and other relevant factors. A distinction was made between a case of a salaried class and a self-employed professional. In case of a self-employed professional, as in the case of the petitioner herein, if the income of the deceased at the time of death was low, it was stated that the Court may assume 2 or 3 times increase in his income by the time he would have stopped working. At the same time, it was already mentioned that in case of a self-employed person having high income, future increase can be estimated at lower level as the expected optimal level also has its own limit. Learned Counsel has also referred to judgment of the same learned Judge in Delhi Transport Corporation v. Deep Kanta and Ors. 98 (2002) DLT 209 : 11 (2002) ACC 486 : 2002 VIII AD (Delhi) 26, which is in the similar terms.
6. I am in full agreement with the views expressed by R.C. Chopra, J. in the aforesaid judgments. In fact, it is those very principles, which have been applied by the Tribunal in the present case. The present case is of a professional and the annual income determined is Rs. 1,12,922/-, which can hardly be said to be on the higher side. Thus, there is no question of any immediate attainment of optimal level of income and it would be reasonable to presume that there is sufficient scope of increase of income in such a case. It has also to be kept in mind that in the case of medical profession, considerable period of time is spent at the initial stage in professional studies and thereafter to establish the practice. The fruits really bear towards a more advanced age. The petitioner was 46 years of age and with his qualifications would have got the benefit of higher income over at least a period of more than a decade.
7. In my considered view, the Trial Court has not fallen into any error apparent nor has improperly exercised the jurisdiction for this Court to interfere in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
8. The petition and the application are dismissed with costs of Rs. 5,000/-.
