Delhi High Court
Icici Lombard General Insurance ... vs Smt Rajni & Ors on 24 March, 2014
Author: Suresh Kait
$~15
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment delivered on: 24th March, 2014
+ MAC. APP. No.215/2012
ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO
LTD ..... Appellant
Represented by: Ms. Neerja Sachdeva,
Adv.
Versus
SMT RAJNI & ORS ..... Respondents
Represented by: Mr. Uday Raj Singh,
Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
1. The present appeal is preferred against the impugned award
dated 10.10.2011, whereby Ld. Tribunal has awarded compensation for
an amount of Rs.10,00,440/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the
date of filing of the Claim Petition till realization of the amount.
2. Ms. Neerja Sachdeva, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant submits that on the date of accident, deceased was 28 years of
age and claimed to be earning Rs.8,750/- per month, however, the
claimants failed to prove the employment of the deceased and his
salary. Therefore, Ld. Tribunal has assessed his income as Rs.4,082/-
per month as per the minimum wages applicable to an unskilled person.
Thus, he was not in permanent employment.
3. Ld. Counsel further submits that despite the abovementioned
facts, Ld. Tribunal has erred in adding 50% in his actual income
towards future prospects which is contrary to the dictum of the Apex
Court in Sarla Verma Vs. DTC and Ors. 2009 (6) SCC 121, further
affirmed by Full Bench in the case of Reshma Kumari and Ors. Vs.
Madan Mohan & Anr. (2013) 9 SCC 65.
4. She further submits that on the non-pecuniary heads, Ld.
Tribunal has awarded Rs.20,000/- each towards loss of consortium, for
loss of estate and for funeral expenses, which are on the higher side.
5. On the other hand, Mr. Uday Raj Singh, Ld. Counsel appearing
on behalf of the respondents / claimants submits that the issue of future
prospects is no more res-integra as 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. Thus, Ld. Tribunal has rightly added 50%
in the actual income of the deceased towards future prospects.
6. Ld. Counsel further submits that the claimants have not filed any
cross-objection or appeal, however, the Appellate Court has to see
whether Ld. Tribunal has granted just and fair compensation. He
submits that deceased was 28 years of age at the time of accident,
leaving behind young widow, three minor children and widow mother.
Thus, wife of the deceased lost the association of her husband, children
lost love and affection and guidance of their father and the mother of
the deceased lost the love and support of her son, which is necessary at
her old age. Hence, the compensation granted towards non-pecuniary
damages are on the lower side.
7. I have heard ld. Counsels for the parties.
8. As far as the issue of future prospects is concerned, this issue has
been dealt by this court in the case bearing MAC.A No.846/2011 titled
as ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Angrej Singh &
Ors., decided on 30.09.2013 while relying upon the dictum of Rajesh
(Supra), wherein the Full Bench of the Apex Court 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. Keeping in view the dictum in Rajesh (Supra) and the view
taken by this court in Angrez Singh (Supra), I do not find any merit in
the instant appeal on this issue. Same is accordingly fails.
10. Regarding the issue of compensation granted on the non-
pecuniary damages, I find force in the submission of Ld. Counsel for
the respondents / claimants. The deceased died when he was 28 years
of age. He left behind young widow, three minor children and widow
mother. The widow wife lost the association of her husband, the
children have lost the love and affection and guidance of their father
and the mother of the deceased lost the love and affection and support
of her son.
11. Keeping in view the facts of this case, I award an amount of
Rs.1,00,000/- each towards loss of love and affection and loss of
consortium and Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses.
12. Consequently, the compensation comes as under:
Sl. Heads of Compensation Compensation
No. Compensation granted by ld. granted by this
Tribunal Court
1. Loss of dependency Rs.9,40,440/- Rs.9,40,440/-
2. Loss of love and Nil Rs.1,00,000/-
affection
3. For funeral expenses Rs. 20,000/- Rs. 25,000/-
4. Loss of estate Rs. 20,000/- Rs. 20,000/-
5. Loss of Consortium Rs. 20,000/- Rs.1,00,000/-
TOTAL Rs.10,00,440/- Rs.11,85,440/-
Accordingly, the compensation is assessed as Rs.11,85,440/-.
13. Resultantly, an amount of Rs.1,85,000/- (Rs.11,85,440 -
Rs.10,00,440/-) is enhanced.
14. The enhanced amount shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum
from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization.
15. Accordingly, appellant / insurance company is directed to deposit
the enhanced amount with up-to-date interest accrued thereon with the
Registrar General of this Court within a period of five weeks from
today, failing which, respondents / claimants shall be entitled for penal
interest @ 12% per annum on account of delayed payment.
16. On deposit, the Registrar General is directed to release the
amount in favour of the respondents / claimants in terms of the award
dated 10.10.2011 passed by the learned Tribunal on taking steps by
them.
17. In view of the above terms, the appeal is disposed of.
SURESH KAIT, J.
MARCH 24, 2014
jg
