Icici Lombard General Insurance ... vs Kunwar Pal Singh & Ors
2014 Latest Caselaw 1216 Del

$~17
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%              Judgment delivered on: 6th March, 2014

+      MAC.APP. 175/2011
ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO
LTD                                       ..... Appellant
                   Represented by: Ms. Suman Bagga, Adv.
              Versus
KUNWAR PAL SINGH & ORS                  ..... Respondents
                  Represented by: NEMO.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT

SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)

1. The present appeal has been preferred against the impugned award dated 25.11.2010, whereby Ld. Tribunal has awarded compensation for an amount of Rs.8,05,344/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization of the amount.

2. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the deceased Devender Kumar was claimed to be working as Sales Executive and was earning Rs.5,000/- per month, however, the claimants could not prove the employment of the deceased and his salary. Therefore, ld. Tribunal has assessed his monthly income as Rs.3,633/- per month as per the minimum wages applicable to an unskilled person prevalent at that time.

3. Ld. Counsel further submits that despite the fact that the claimants failed to prove that the deceased was in permanent job, Ld. Tribunal has

added 50% in actual income of the deceased towards future prospects, which is contrary to the dictum of Sarla Verma Vs. DTC and Ors. 2009 (6) SCC 121, 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.

4. The issue of future prospects has been decided by this court in the case bearing MACA No.846/2011 titled as ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Angrej Singh & Ors., while relying upon the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Rajesh and Ors. Vs. Rajbir Singh and Ors. 2013 (6) SCALE 56, wherein the Full Bench of the Apex Court has held that future prospects can be awarded up to 50% keeping in view the age of the deceased or injured.

5. Admittedly in the present case, the deceased was 21 years of age on the date of accident. Therefore, in view of the law settled in Rajesh (Supra) and the view taken by this court in the case of Angrej Singh (Supra), I do not find any merit in the instant appeal.

6. Accordingly, the instant appeal is dismissed.

7. Consequently, the statutory amount be released in favour of the appellant and remaining compensation amount, if any, be released in favour of the claimants on taking steps by them.

CM. NO. 4182/2011 With the dismissal of the appeal itself, instant application has become infructuous and dismissed as such.

SURESH KAIT, J MARCH 06, 2014/jg