Delhi High Court
Icici Lombard General Insurance ... vs Raj Kesari Devi & Ors. on 16 September, 2013
Author: Suresh Kait
$~10
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 16th September, 2013
+ MAC.APP. 914/2011
ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE
CO LTD ..... Appellant
Through: Ms. Neerja Sachdeva, Adv.
Versus
RAJ KESARI DEVI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. M.K. Sinha, Adv. for R1 to
R4.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
1. Vide the instant appeal, appellant has assailed the impugned award
dated 07.07.2011, whereby ld. Tribunal has granted compensation for a sum
of Rs.13,05,640/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing
the petition, till the date of realization.
2. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has argued the
instant appeal on two grounds; firstly, the claimants failed to prove that the
deceased was working as a plumber and he was earning Rs.10,000/- per
month. Despite that the ld. Tribunal has assessed the salary of the deceased
as Rs.6,448/- as per minimum wages for a skilled person.
3. The second ground argued by the ld. Counsel for the appellant is that
ld. Tribunal has wrongly added 50% towards future prospects, whereas
keeping in view the dictum of Sarla Verma v. DTC and Ors. 2009 (6) SCC
121, which has been further affirmed by the Full Bench of Supreme Court in
the case of Reshma Kumari & Ors. Vs. Madan Mohan & Anr. delivered in
Civil Appeal No. 4646 of 2009, since the deceased was not in the permanent
job, therefore, the ld. Tribunal should not have added 50% towards future
prospects.
4. Ld. Counsel further submits that towards love and affection and loss
of consortium ld. Tribunal has wrongly granted Rs.75,000/- (Rs.25,000 x 3)
and Rs.50,000/- respectively without any basis.
5. I note, Insurance Company has not brought any evidence on record
contrary to that the deceased was working as a plumber as has been
established by the claimants. Though the claimants have claimed that the
deceased was earning Rs.10,000/- per month, however, they could not prove
the same by way of any account or any salary certificate. Therefore, I am of
the considered opinion that the ld. Tribunal has rightly assessed the monthly
salary as per the minimum wages for a skilled person.
6. So far as the issue of future prospects is concerned, in the case of
Rajesh and Ors. v. Rajbir Singh and Ors. 2013 (6) Scale 563, the Apex
Court has opined that if the age of the deceased is up to 40 years, 50% future
prospects have to be granted. In the present case, the age of the deceased
was 40 years at the time accident. Therefore, keeping in view the dictum of
Rajesh & Ors. (Supra), I am of the view that ld. Tribunal has rightly added
50% towards future prospects.
7. So far as the issue of compensation towards love and affection and
loss of consortium is concerned, res- integra same has been considered by
the Full Bench of the Apex Court in the Rajesh & Ors. (Supra).
8. In view of above, I do not find any discrepancy in the award passed
by the ld. Tribunal.
9. Accordingly, instant appeal is dismissed.
10. Consequently, balance award amount shall be released in favour of
the respondents / claimants.
11. Statutory amount be also released in favour of the appellant.
SURESH KAIT, J
SEPTEMBER 16, 2013
Jg/RS
