Delhi High Court
Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. ... vs Renu Arora & Ors. on 27 January, 2014
Author: Suresh Kait
$~26
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 27th January, 2014
+ MAC.APP. No.439/2013
IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. .....Appellant
Represented by: Mr. Abhishek, Advocate.
Versus
RENU ARORA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Represented by: Mr. Vikas Agarwal, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
1. Instant appeal is directed against the impugned award dated
01.04.2013, whereby the learned Tribunal has granted compensation for a
sum of Rs.15,21,891/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of
filing of the petition till realization of the amount.
2. The sole ground argued by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant/Insurance Company is that on the date of accident, the deceased
was 21 years of age and not in a permanent job, despite that the learned
Tribunal has wrongly added 50% of the income of the deceased towards
future prospect in contrary to the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of
Sarla Verma Vs. DTC and Ors. 2009 (6) SCC 121, which has been further
affirmed by the Full Bench of the Apex Court in the case of Reshma
Kumari and Ors. Vs. Madan Mohan & Anr. (2013) 9 SCC 65.
3. It is pertinent to note that thereafter the issue of future prospects has
been decided by the Full Bench of the Apex Court in the case of Rajesh and
Ors. Vs. Rajbir Singh and Ors. 2013 (6) SCALE 563, wherein the cases of
Santosh Devi Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. 2012 6 SCC 421 and
Sarla Verma (supra) were also considered and 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.
4. This Court has also applied the aforenoted dictum of Rajesh & Ors.
(supra) in the case bearing MACA No.846/2011 titled as 'ICICI Lombard
General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Angrej Singh & Ors.,' decided on
30.09.2013.
5. Keeping in view the settled position of law, I do not find any merit in
the instant appeal. The same is accordingly dismissed.
6. Consequently, the Registry of this Court is directed to release the
statutory amount in favour of the appellant/Insurance Company and the
balance compensation amount alongwith upto date interest accrued thereon
in favour of the respondents/claimants on taking necessary steps by them.
SURESH KAIT, J.
JANUARY 27, 2014
sb
