Delhi High Court
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Phool Kali & Ors. on 10 February, 2014
Author: Suresh Kait
$~18
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 10th February 2014
+ MAC.APP. 7/2013
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. ..... Appellant
Represented by: Ms.Suman Bagga,
Ms.Shruti Shukla and
Mr.Dewashish Maharishi,
Advocates.
Versus
PHOOL KALI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Represented by: Mr.Vinod Sharma,
Advocate for Respondent
Nos. 1 to 3.
Mr.Shobhit Mittal,
Advocate for Respondent
No.4.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
1. The present appeal is preferred against the impugned award dated
07.09.2012, whereby the learned Tribunal has granted compensation for
a sum of Rs.11,49,744/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from
the date of filing the claim petition till realization of the amount.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 03.07.2009 at about 6.45 AM, a
Bus bearing No. HP 68 0946 was going from Uttar Kashi towards
Gangotari in which deceased Mithwa alongwith his friends and several
other passengers were travelling. All of a sudden, the bus fell down in
the Bhagirathi River while passing through Gehrang at Bhatwadi
Gangotari State Highway. In the said bus, there were 63 passengers.
Out of which 31 persons were killed, 13 persons were injured and 19
persons were missing.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company argued
that at the time of the accident, the deceased was aged 19 years. He was
a bachelor. The respondents/claimants have failed to prove that
deceased was in permanent employment, therefore, the learned Tribunal
has considered his monthly income as Rs.3,934/- per month as per the
minimum wages applicable to an unskilled person. Despite that, the
learned Tribunal has added 50% towards future prospects.
4. Learned counsel further submitted that keeping in mind the dictum
of Santosh Devi Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. 2012 6 SCC
421 , as was prevailing at that time, the learned Tribunal ought to have
added 30% of the income of the deceased towards future prospects
instead of 50%.
5. On the issue of future prospects, the Full Bench of the Apex Court
in the case of Rajesh and Ors. Vs. Rajbir Singh and Ors. 2013 (6)
SCALE 563, has held as under:-
"11. Since, the Court in Santosh Devi's case (supra)
actually intended to follow the principle in the case
of salaried persons as laid in Sarla Verma's
case (supra) and to make it applicable also to the
self-employed and persons on fixed wages, it is
clarified that the increase in the case of those groups
is not 30% always; it will also have a reference to
the age. In other words, in the case of self-employed
or persons with fixed wages, in case, the deceased
victim was below 40 years, there must be an addition
of 50% to the actual income of the deceased while
computing future prospects. Needless to say that the
actual income should be income after paying the tax,
if any. Addition should be 30% in case the deceased
was in the age group of 40 to 50 years."
12. In Sarla Verma's case (supra), it has been stated
that in the case of those above 50 years, there shall
be no addition. Having regard to the fact that in the
case of those self-employed or on fixed wages, where
there is normally no age of superannuation, we are
of the view that it will only be just and equitable to
provide an addition of 15% in the case where the
victim is between the age group of 50 to 60 years so
as to make the compensation just, equitable, fair and
reasonable. There shall normally be no addition
thereafter.
6. This Court has followed the dictum of Rajesh & Ors. (supra) in
the case bearing MAC. APP. No.846/2011 titled as 'ICICI Lombard
General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Angrej Singh & Ors.', decided on
30.09.2013.
7. Therefore, keeping in view the settled position of law and that the
deceased was aged 19 years at the time of the accident, I find no
discrepancy in the impugned award dated 07.09.2012, whereby the
learned Tribunal has rightly granted 50% of the actual income of the
deceased towards future prospects. Therefore, I confirm the same.
8. Learned counsel further submitted that the learned Tribunal has
granted compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- towards loss of love, company
and affection etc. and Rs.75,000/- for loss of estate, which is on higher
side. She submitted that in the case of Rajesh & Ors. (supra), the Apex
Court has awarded Rs.1,00,000/- on account of loss of love and
affection.
9. Learned counsel also argued that the learned Tribunal has wrongly
granted compensation of Rs.50,000/- on account of loss of consortium as
deceased was a bachelor. Therefore, there is no question of granting
compensation under this head.
10. In the present case, the deceased was a young boy of 19 years and
left behind his widow mother and two minor unmarried sisters. He was
the sole earning member of the family and due to his sudden death whole
family members suffer an irreparable loss from all sides. Moreover, the
minor sisters and the widow mother being aged solely depend on the
income of the deceased.
11. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case,
I am of the considered opinion that the learned Tribunal has rightly
granted Rs.1,50,000/- and Rs.75,000/- on account of loss of love,
company and affection etc, and loss of estate being just and proper.
12. Hence, I do not find any substance in the submission of learned
counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company.
13. So far as the compensation on account of loss of consortium is
concerned, the learned Tribunal has mistakenly granted Rs. 50,000/-
towards the same because the deceased was unmarried and there was no
question of granting any compensation on this count. I find force in the
submission of the learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company.
14. Consequently, the impugned award dated 07.09.2012 qua granting
Rs.50,000/- for loss of consortium is set aside.
15. In view of the above discussion, the instant appeal is partially
allowed.
16. Consequently, the Registry of this Court is directed to release the
statutory amount and the excess amount of Rs.50,000 with proportionate
interest in favour of the appellant/Insurance Company. Further directed
to release the balance compensation amount with upto date interest
accrued thereon in favour of the respondents/claimants in terms of the
award dated 07.09.2012.
SURESH KAIT, J.
FEBRUARY 10, 2014
sb
