Delhi High Court
Icici Lombard General Insurance ... vs Manju @ Manju & Ors on 4 September, 2012
Author: G.P. Mittal
$~13
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 4th September, 2012
+ MAC.APP. 343/2011
ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL
INSURANCE CO LTD ..... Appellant
Through: Mr.Pankaj Seth, Advocate
versus
MANJU @ MANJU & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Nemo
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P. MITTAL
JUDGMENT
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
1. Steps have not been taken for service of Respondents No.3 and 4 (owner and
driver of offending vehicle).
2. It is urged by the learned counsel for the Appellant Insurance Company that
since the Claims Tribunal has granted the recovery rights to the Appellant
Insurance Company and this Appeal is only for reduction of compensation,
service of Respondents No.3 and 4 may be dispensed with and the Appeal may
be decided on merits.
3. In view of the submission made, service of Respondents No.3 and 4 is
dispensed with.
4. A compensation of `5,92,000/- was awarded for the death of Rajesh Kumar,
who died in a motor vehicle accident, which occurred on 17.08.2009.
5. It is urged by the learned counsel for the Appellant Insurance Company that in
the absence of any evidence with regard to the future prospects, the Claims
Tribunal erred in making an addition of 50% in deceased's income. It is stated
that in view of the Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors.,
2012 (4) SCALE 559, an addition of 30% could have been made towards
inflation.
6. 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."
7. Applying Santosh Devi, loss of dependency comes to `4,91,400/- (4500/- +
30% x 1/2 x 12 x 14).
8. On making a provision of a sum of `25,000/- towards loss of love and
affections, `5,000/- towards funeral expenses and `10,000/- towards loss to
estate, the compensation comes to `5,31,400/-.
9. The compensation of `5,31,400/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum as
awarded by the Claims Tribunal shall be disbursed in favour of Respondents
No.1 and 2 in terms of the order passed by the Claims Tribunal.
10. Excess amount of `60,600/- along with proportionate interest and the interest
accrued, if any, during the pendency of the Appeal shall be refunded to the
Appellant Insurance Company.
11. Statutory amount of `25,000/- shall be returned to Appellant Insurance
Company.
12. The Appeal is allowed in the above terms.
13. The pending applications stand disposed of.
G.P. MITTAL, J
SEPTEMBER 04, 2012
v
