Sriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Mahipal Singh & Ors.
2012 Latest Caselaw 4746 Del

*        IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                                 Date of decision: 13th August, 2012
+        MAC. APP. 813/2011

         SRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.      ...... Appellant
                     Through: Mr. Pankaj Seth, Adv.

                                        versus
         MAHIPAL SINGH & ORS.                              ...... Respondents
                      Through            Mr. Tripurari Tiwari, Adv with
                                         Ms. Kavita Adv. for R-1 to R-4.
         CORAM:
         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL

                                  JUDGMENT

G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)

1. The Appeal is for reduction of compensation of `7,54,792/- passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) for the death of Naresh Kumar who died in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 13.10.2010.

2. A short ground raised during the hearing of the Appeal is that the Claimants did not lead any evidence with regard to the deceased's future prospects. The Claims Tribunal erred in making addition of 50% in the minimum wages on the basis of which the loss of dependency was computed.

3. On the other hand, it is urged by the learned counsel for Respondents No.1 to 4 (the Claimants) that the deceased was a young boy, aged 21 years. The Claims Tribunal was, therefore, justified in making an addition of 50% towards the future prospects/inflation.

4. This Court in Rakhi v. Satish Kumar & Ors. (MAC. APP. 390/2011) decided on 16.07.2012, referred to the reports of the Supreme Court in General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum v. Susamma Thomas (Mrs.) and Ors. (1994) 2 SCC 176, Sarla Dixit v. Balwant Yadav, (1996) 3 SCC 179, Bijoy Kumar Dugar v. Bidya Dhar Dutta & Ors, (2006) 3 SCC 242, Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr, (2009) 6 SCC 121 and Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors., 2012 (4) SCALE 559 and held that as per Santosh Devi even in the absence of any evidence as to future prospects an increase of 30% in the income has to be provided where the victim had fixed income or was a self employed person. Relevant portion of Santosh Devi is extracted hereunder:-

"14.....In our view, it will be naive to say that the wages or total emoluments/income of a person who is self-employed or who is employed on a fixed salary without provision for annual increment, etc., would remain the same throughout his life. The rise in the cost of living affects everyone across the board. It does not make any distinction between rich and poor. As a matter of fact, the effect of rise in prices which directly impacts the cost of living is minimal on the rich and maximum on those who are self- employed or who get fixed income/emoluments. They are the worst affected people. Therefore, they put extra efforts to generate additional income necessary for sustaining their families. The salaries of those employed under the Central and State Governments and their agencies/instrumentalities have been revised from time to time to provide a cushion against the rising prices and provisions have been made for providing security to the families of the deceased employees. The salaries of those employed in private sectors have also increased manifold. Till about two decades ago, nobody could have imagined that salary of Class IV employee of the Government would be in five figures and total emoluments of those in higher echelons of service will cross the figure of rupees one lac.

Although, the wages/income of those employed in unorganized sectors has not registered a corresponding increase and has not kept pace with the increase in the salaries of the Government employees and those employed in private sectors but it cannot be denied that there has been incremental enhancement in the income of those who are self-employed and even those engaged on daily basis, monthly basis or even seasonal basis. We can take judicial notice of the fact that with a view to meet the challenges posed by high cost of living, the persons falling in the latter category periodically increase the cost of their labour. In this context, it may be useful to give an example of a tailor who earns his livelihood by stitching cloths. If the cost of living increases and the prices of essentials go up, it is but natural for him to increase the cost of his labour. So will be the cases of ordinary skilled and unskilled labour, like, barber, blacksmith, cobbler, mason etc. Therefore, we do not think that while making the observations in the last three lines of paragraph 24 of Sarla Verma's judgment, the Court had intended to lay down an absolute rule that there will be no addition in the income of a person who is self-employed or who is paid fixed wages. Rather, it would be reasonable to say that a person who is self-employed or is engaged on fixed wages will also get 30 per cent increase in his total income over a period of time and if he / she becomes victim of accident then the same formula deserves to be applied for calculating the amount of compensation."

5. Thus, relying on Santosh Devi I am of the view that even in the absence of any evidence with regard to the deceased's future prospects, the Claimants were entitled to addition of 30% towards the inflation.

6. The loss of dependency thus comes to `5,53,238/- (6448/- + 30% x 1/2 x 11 x 12) as against ` 6,38,352/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal.

7. The Claims Tribunal awarded a sum of `10,000/- on account of loss of consortium, `10,000/- towards loss to estate and `5,000/- towards funeral expenses.

8. Since it was a case of death of a bachelor, the Claimants were entitled to compensation on account of loss of love and affection in place of compensation on account of loss of consortium. I make a provision of `25,000/- towards the loss of love and affection and `10,000/- each towards loss to estate and funeral expenses.

9. The Claims Tribunal further awarded a sum of `91,440/- on account of medical expenses incurred on the deceased before he succumbed to the injuries, which is not disputed by the Appellant and is maintained. The compensation thus comes to `6,89,678/- as against award of `7,54,792/-.

10. Respondents No.1 to 4 are entitled to a sum of `6,89,678/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum as awarded by the Claims Tribunal. This amount shall be disbursed/held in fixed deposit in terms of the order passed by the Claims Tribunal.

11. The excess amount of `65,114/- along with proportionate interest and the interest accrued, if any, during the pendency of the Appeal shall be refunded to the Appellant Insurance Company.

12. The statutory deposit of `25,000/- shall be refunded to the Appellant Insurance Company.

13. The Appeal is allowed in above terms.

14. Pending Applications stand disposed of.

(G.P. MITTAL) JUDGE AUGUST 13, 2012 vk