Delhi High Court
Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd vs Omkar & Ors. on 23 July, 2012
Author: G.P. Mittal
$~30
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision:23rd July, 2012
+ MAC. APP. No.230/2012
SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
..... Appellant
Through: Mr. K.L. Nandwani,
Advocate
Versus
OMKAR & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. S.N. Parashar, Advocate for
the Respondents No.1 & 2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
JUDGMENT
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
1. The Appeal is for reduction of `7,91,374/- awarded by the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal(the Claims Tribunal) for the
death of Yamin who died in a motor vehicle accident which
occurred on 12.08.2011.
2. The only ground of challenge raised by Mr.K.L. Nandwani,
Advocate for the Appellant is that there was no evidence that
the deceased had bright future prospects. Thus addition of 50%
could not have been made in the deceased's income to compute
the loss of dependency.
3. 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 Santosh Devi(supra) provided for an increase of
30% in the victims income towards inflation in case of menial,
skilled, unskilled workers and self employed persons, like
barber, blacksmith, cobbler, mason, carpenter, etc. etc.
Relevant portion of the Santosh Devi(supra) 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."
4. Following Rakhi(supra), the loss of dependency comes to
`6,51,190/- (`6422/- + 30% x 1÷ 2 x 12 x 13) as against
`7,51,374/- as computed by the Claims Tribunal. On adding a
sum of `40,000/- towards non-pecuniary damages as granted by
the Claims Tribunal, the overall compensation comes to
`6,91,190/-. Thus, the overall compensation is reduced by an
amount of `1,00,184/-. The excess amount of `1,00,184/- along
with proportionate interest and the interest, if any, accrued
during the pendency of the Appeal shall be refunded to the
Appellant Insurance. The compensation payable to the
Claimants shall be disbursed in terms of the orders passed by
the Claims Tribunal.
5. The Appeal is allowed in above terms.
6. The statutory amount of `25,000/- shall be refunded to the
Appellant Insurance Company.
7. Pending Applications stand disposed of.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
JULY 23, 2012
pst
