Delhi High Court
Reliance General Insurance Co Ltd vs Rajwati & Ors on 23 December, 2014
$~A-5
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision:23.12.2014
+ MAC.APP. 1137/2014 and CM No.20603/2014 (stay)
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD ..... Appellant
Through Mr. A.K. Soni, Advocate.
versus
RAJWATI & ORS ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Navneet Goyal, Advocate for R-1
to 4/claimants
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH
JAYANT NATH, J. (ORAL)
1. By the present appeal the appellant seeks to impugn the award dated
16.09.2014.
2. The brief facts are that on 11.09.2011 Sh.Naveen Dabas after closing
the shop was going to his house along with Hemraj on his motorcycle. On
the way at Bakhtawarpur Palla Raod, the motorcycle was hit by a TATA
407 truck said to be driven at a fast speed in a rash and negligent manner.
The deceased succumbed to his injuries sustained in the accident.
3. The controversy revolves around the compensation awarded to the
claimants. The Tribunal awarded the following compensation:-
1. Loss of dependency Rs.19,01,718/-
2. Loss of consortium Rs.1,00,000/-
3. Funeral charge Rs.25,000/-
4. Loss of love and affection Rs.1,00,000/-
5. Loss of estate Rs.10,000/-
Total Rs.21,36,718/-
4. A perusal of the award shows that the Tribunal noted the submission
of the claimants that the deceased was earning Rs.15,000/- per month as he
was a shopkeeper. As no documents were produced to prove the income of
the deceased or to even show the deceased was running a shop, the Tribunal
assessed the income of the deceased based on minimum wages for a
matriculate on the date of the accident i.e. Rs.7,826/- per month. The
Tribunal noted that the deceased was 25 years and five months old and is
survived by his wife, one minor child and his parents. Accordingly, the
Tribunal enhanced the income by 50% on account of future prospects. 1/4th
deduction was made keeping into view that there were four dependents on
account of personal expenses of the deceased. A multiplier of 18 was used.
Hence, loss of dependency was calculated at Rs.19,01,718/-.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the Tribunal
has wrongly deducted 1/4th of the income of the deceased on account of
personal expenses. He submits that the father would normally not be
considered as a dependent on the deceased and in the present case there are
only three dependents, namely, the widow, the minor child and the mother.
Hence, he submits that 1/3rd is the appropriate deduction from the income
towards personal expenses for the purpose of computing loss of dependency.
He secondly submits that the assessed income on the basis of minimum
wages should not be enhanced by 50% on account of future prospects.
6. A perusal of the evidence of PW-1 shows that in her affidavit by way
of evidence she merely states that the deceased is survived by herself, her
minor son, the mother and the father. There is no averment made stating that
the father Sh.Angrej Singh was financially dependent upon the deceased.
The Supreme Court in the case of Smt.Sarla Verma and Ors. vs. Delhi
Transport Corporation and Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121 held that a father is
likely to have his own income and would not be considered as a dependent
in the absence of the evidence to the contrary. Accordingly, in my opinion
the deceased is survived by only three dependents and the deduction of 1/3 rd
has to be made from the income of the deceased towards his personal
expenses.
7. Hence, the loss of dependency would now come to Rs.16,90,416/-
[(Rs.7,826/- + 50% -1/3rd) x 12 x18].
8. As far as future prospects are concerned, I can take judicial note of the
fact that minimum wages for a matriculate in 2002 were Rs.3115.4/- P.M.
and in 2012 were Rs.8528/- P.M. It is obvious that the prescribed minimum
wages have more than doubled in ten years.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. 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., (supra), Reshma Kumari & Ors. vs.
Madan Mohan & Anr.(2013) 9 SCC 65 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. This court further held that there
is no conflict in the legal position as set out in the judgments of Reshma
Kumari & Ors. vs. Madan Mohan & Anr(supra) and Rajesh & Ors. vs.
Rajbir Singh & Ors. (supra).
12. I may further note that this court in MAC APP.761/2012 Rakesh and
Ors. vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. vide judgment dated
02.04.2014 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. The said SLP No.5612/2014 was
dismissed by the Supreme Court on 10.10.2014.
13. Accordingly, the enhancement of the assessed income by 50% by the
Tribunal is in order.
14. Accordingly, with the above modification in the award of the
Tribunal, the Total compensation would now be payable as follows:-
1. Loss of dependency Rs.16,90,416/-
2. Loss of consortium Rs.1,00,000/-
3. Funeral charge Rs.25,000/-
4. Loss of love and affection Rs.1,00,000/-
5. Loss of estate Rs.10,000/-
Total Rs.19,25,416/-
15. The appellant may deposit the compensation amount as per this order
before the Tribunal within six weeks from today. The Tribunal may disburse
the compensation in the same proportion as directed in the award.
16. The appeal stands disposed of.
17. Pending application also stands disposed of.
18. Statutory amount, if any, be refunded.
JAYANT NATH, J
DECEMBER 23, 2014/rb
