Delhi High Court
National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Tahsim Khan & Ors. on 8 December, 2014
$~A-34
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 08.12.2014
+ MAC.APP. 1102/2014
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. ..... Appellant
Through Ms.Archana Gaur, Adv.
Versus
TAHSIM KHAN & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH
JAYANT NATH, J.(ORAL)
1. By the present appeal the appellant Insurance Company seeks to impugn
the Award dated 28.08.2014.
2. The brief facts which led to filing of the claim petition are that on
11.07.2013 at about 1:00 pm the deceased Sh.Shahrukh Khan was coming
fromVikas Puri, New Delhi. When he reached at Dholi Piyau, near Bus stand,
Nazafgarh Road, Vikas Puri, New Delhi, the offending vehicle i.e. a bus which
was being driven by its driver/Respondent no.3 in a rash and negligent manner
hit the deceased. Resultantly, the deceased fell down and died.
3. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal concluded that the
accident took place due the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the
offending vehicle.
4. On compensation, the Tribunal awarded the following compensation:-
Loss of dependency Rs.12,50,964/-
Loss of love & affection Rs.25,000/-
Funeral expenses Rs.25,000/-
Loss of estate Rs.10,000/-
Total Rs.13,10,964/-
5. The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased based on minimum
wages for an unskilled workman on the date of the accident at Rs. 7,722/- per
month. As the age of the deceased was 19 years, 50% was added towards future
prospects. Further, 1/2 was deducted towards personal & living expenses as the
deceased was a bachelor. Applying the multiplier of 18, loss of dependency
was calculated at Rs. 12,50,964/-.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant seeks to impugn the
compensation awarded stating that the Tribunal has wrongly applied the
multiplier based on the age of the deceased for the calculation of loss of
dependency and that it should be based on the age of mother of the deceased.
Further, the learned counsel for the appellant contends that the Tribunal has
erred in awarding 50% towards future prospects when the deceased was not in
a permanent job.
7. On the issue of multiplier being used for the calculation of loss of
dependency, reference may be had to the judgment of this Court in the case of
Mohd. Hasnain & Ors. vs. Jagram Meena & Ors. MANU/DE/0715/2014;
2014 (142) DRJ 303. This Court held that the multiplier has to be based on the
age of the deceased. That was a case where the age of the deceased was 39
years.
8. This Court in the said case of Mohd. Hasnain & Ors. vs. Jagram Meena
& Ors. (supra) relied on the judgments of the Supreme Court in case of M.
Mansoor vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., MANU/SC/1042 and in the
case Amrit Bhanu Shali & Ors. vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.
MANU/SC/0537/2012. In Amrit Bhanu Shali & Ors. vs. National Insurance
Company Ltd. & Ors.(supra) the Supreme Court held as follows:-
"15. The selection of multiplier is based on the age of the deceased
and not on the basis of the age of the dependants. There may be a
number of dependants of the deceased whose age may be different
and, therefore, the age of the dependants has no nexus with the
computation of compensation."
9. M. Mansoor vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd (supra) was a case
where the deceased was a bachelor of 24 years of age and the Supreme Court
held that the selection of the multiplier is based on the age of the deceased and
not the age of the dependants. Further, in the case of Amrit Bhanu Shali &
Ors. vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. (supra) the deceased was a
bachelor aged 26 years and the Court applied the multiplier of 17. In view of
the said judgment passed by this Court, following the judgments of the
Supreme Court, the Tribunal has rightly taken the age of the deceased to
consider the appropriate multiplier.
10. I may further note that in MAC APP.761/2012 Rakesh and Ors. vs.
National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. vide judgment dated 02.04.2014 where
the deceased was 24 years the Tribunal had taken the multiplier of 13
considering the age of the mother of the deceased, as he was a bachelor. This
court relying upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Mohd. Hasnain &
Ors. vs. Jagram Meena & Ors. (supra) applied a multiplier of 18 based on the
age of the deceased. Against the said judgment the appellant had filed an SLP
before the Supreme Court. The said SLP No.5612/2014 was dismissed by the
Supreme Court on 10.10.2014.
11. In view of the above, I do not find any error in the multiplier of 18 being
used by the Tribunal for the calculation of loss of dependency.
12. Coming to the issue of future prospects, I can take judicial note of the
fact that minimum wages for an unskilled worker in 2002 were Rs.2,667.4/-
P.M. and in 2012 were Rs.7,020/- P.M. It is obvious that the prescribed
minimum wages have more than doubled in ten years.
13. In case of Rajesh & Ors. vs. Rajbir Singh & Ors.(2013) 9 SCC 54, the
Supreme Court held that in the case of self employed or those on fixed wages,
when the victim is below 40 years an addition of 50% should be made in the
wages for the purpose of computing loss of future earnings.
14. In the case of Smt.Savita vs. Bindar Singh & Ors., (2014) 4 SCC 505,
the Supreme Court was of the view that in the case of self employed or those
engaged on fixed wages, 30% increase in income over period of time would be
appropriate. In the case of V.Mekala vs. M.Malathi & Anr., 2014 ACJ 1441,
the Supreme Court in the case of injury to a student who was studying in Class
XI aged 16 years had awarded 50% increase for future prospects.
15. Further, this court in the case of ICICI Lombard General Insurance
Company vs. Angrej Singh & Ors. in MAC APP. 846/2011 in judgment dated
30.09.2013 had gone into this issue and had noted the judgments of the
Supreme Court in the case of Smt.Sarla Verma and Ors. vs. Delhi Transport
Corporation and Anr. (2009) 6 SCC 121, Reshma Kumari & Ors. vs. Madan
Mohan & Anr. 2013 ACJ 1253 and other judgments and concluded that the
Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh & Ors. vs. Rajbir Singh & Ors., (supra)
has held that the future prospects should be given to persons who are self-
employed or on fixed wages.
16. I may further note that this court in Rakesh and Ors. vs. National
Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. (supra) had in a case where the deceased was 24
years old added 50% to the income towards future prospects for computing loss
of dependency based on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of
Rajesh & Ors. vs. Rajbir Singh & Ors.(supra). Against the said judgment the
appellant had filed an SLP before the Supreme Court. As stated above, the said
SLP No.5612/2014 was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 10.10.2014.
17. In view of the above, there are no reasons to differ with the reasoning of
the award granting 50% increase on account of future prospects.
18. In view of the above, in my opinion there is no merit in the contention of
the learned counsel for the appellant. The present appeal is accordingly
dismissed.
19. The appellant insurance company is hereby directed to deposit the
awarded amount within four weeks from today with Registrar General of this
Court. On deposit of the awarded amount, the Registrar General may release
the amount in favour of the beneficiaries/claimants proportionately as per the
directions in the Award through UCO Bank, Delhi High Court.
20. Statutory amount, if any, be refunded to the appellant.
JAYANT NATH, J
DECEMBER 08, 2014
sh
