Delhi High Court
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Rekha & Ors. on 12 February, 2014
Author: Suresh Kait
$~19
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 10th February 2014
+ MAC.APP. 8/2013
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. ..... Appellant
Represented by: Ms.Suman Bagga,
Ms.Shruti Shukla and
Mr.Dewashish Maharishi,
Advocates.
Versus
REKHA & 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.11,74,744/- 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 Ishwar Chand 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. Name of deceased Ishwar Chand
was also in the list of missing persons.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/Insurance
Company has argued that though there was no funeral ceremony, but the
learned Tribunal has granted a sum of Rs.25,000/- as funeral expenses.
4. However, the deceased remained missing but in such eventuality,
legal heirs of the deceased might have borne some expenses towards
'chautha' and 'terahanvi' ceremonies etc. Since there is no such
evidence on record, therefore, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondents/claimants has conceded that claimants have no objection if
Rs.25,000/- granted on account of funeral expenses be reduced from the
compensation amount.
5. I order accordingly.
6. The second ground argued by learned counsel for the
appellant/Insurance Company is that at the time of accident, the deceased
was aged 25 years. 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.
7. 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%.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. Therefore, keeping in view the settled position of law and that the
deceased was aged 25 years at the time of accident, I find no discrepancy
in the impugned award dated 07.09.2012, whereby the learned Tribunal
has granted 50% of the actual income of the deceased towards future
prospects. Therefore, I confirm the same.
11. Learned counsel further submitted that the learned Tribunal has
granted compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- towards loss of love and affection
etc., 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.
12. Learned counsel also argued that the compensation of
Rs.1,00,000/- granted towards loss of estate and Rs.50,000/- on account
of loss of consortium is also on higher side.
13. Though there is no straight jacket formula to allow the
compensation towards non-pecuniary benefits as it depends upon the
facts and circumstances of each case.
14. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the considered opinion
that compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- granted by the learned Tribunal for
loss of love and affection is on higher side, therefore, the same is
reduced to Rs.1,00,000/-.
15. So far as the compensation on account of loss of estate and loss of
consortium is concerned, the learned Tribunal has granted Rs.1,00,000/-
on account of loss of estate whereas compensation of Rs.50,000/-
granted for loss of consortium is on lower side. Therefore, I am of the
considered opinion that if the compensation granted on account of both
the aforementioned heads be reversed, then there may not be any
discrepancy in the impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal.
16. Hence, I do not find any substance in the submission of learned
counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company. Thus, an amount of
Rs.75,000/- is reduced from the compensation amount.
17. In view of the above discussion, the instant appeal is partially
allowed.
18. Consequently, the Registry of this Court is directed to release the
statutory amount and the excess amount of Rs.75,000/- with
proportionate interest in favour of the appellant/Insurance Company.
Further, directed to release the remaining compensation amount with
upto date interest accrued thereon in favour of the respondents/claimants
in terms of the award dated 07.09.2012.
CM No.151/2013 (for stay)
With the disposal of the appeal itself, this application has become
infructious. The same is accordingly dismissed.
SURESH KAIT, J.
FEBRUARY 10, 2014
Sb/RS
