Shriram General Insurance Co. ... vs Smt. Seema & Ors
2014 Latest Caselaw 2509 Del

$~20
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                           Judgment delivered on:16th May, 2014

+                               MAC.APP. 840/2013


       SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.        ..... Appellant
                   Represented by: Mr.K.L.Nandwani, Advocate.

                          Versus

       SMT. SEEMA & ORS                                   ..... Respondents
                     Represented by:         Mr.Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate for
                                             Respondent Nos. 1 to 4.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT

SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)

1. Vide the present appeal, the appellant/Insurance Company has assailed the award dated 02.07.2013, whereby the learned Tribunal has granted compensation for a sum of Rs.11,81,512/- with interest at the rate of 7.5 % per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization of the amount.

2. Mr.K.L.Nandwani, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/Insurance Company submits that at the time of the accident, the deceased Prem Singh was 32 years of age. Though the claimants have claimed that the deceased was Class IV employee with MCD, however, they have failed to prove his avocation and salary. Despite that the learned

Tribunal has wrongly added 50% in his actual income towards future prospects.

3. To strengthen his arguments, learned counsel has relied upon a 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.

4. Mr. Nandwani, further submits that the claimants have failed to prove the source of income of the deceased, however, while calculating the compensation on account of loss of dependency, the learned Tribunal has assessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.4,382/- applicable to a Matriculate at the prevalent time as per the Minimum Wages Act, 1948.

5. Learned counsel submits that the compensation granted by the learned Tribunal towards non-pecuniary damages is on higher side.

6. On the other hand, Mr.Sanjiv Gupta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 to 4/claimants while refuting the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company submits that the deceased was 32 years of age at the time of the accident, therefore, as per the settled law, the claimants are entitled for addition of 50% in the actual income of the deceased towards future prospects.

7. As regards the non-pecuniary damages are concerned, the learned counsel for the respondents/claimants submits that it is the discretion of the court to award compensation on this ground and keeping in mind the facts and circumstances of the case in hand, thus, the compensation granted by the learned Tribunal on this count is not on higher side.

8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

9. The issue of future prospects has been dealt with by this Court 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 while relying upon the judgment of the Full Bench of the Apex Court in Rajesh and Ors. Vs. Rajbir Singh and Ors. 2013 (6) SCALE 563. Even thereafter, this Court is consistently relying upon the aforesaid dictum of the Apex Court.

10. Therefore, keeping in view the settled position of law and that the deceased was aged 32 years at the time of the accident, I am of the considered opinion that the learned Tribunal has rightly added 50% of the actual income of the deceased towards future prospects. Hence, the appeal fails on this ground.

11. Secondly, it is admitted that the respondents/claimants have failed to establish the avocation and salary of the deceased, therefore, keeping in mind the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, I am of the opinion that the learned Tribunal has rightly taken Rs.4,382/- as monthly income of the deceased applicable to a matriculate at the prevalent time. Therefore, I find no substance on this issue. The same is dismissed.

12. It is relevant to note that the deceased died at a young age of 32 years leaving behind a young widow, two minor sons and an aged widow mother. The deceased was the sole bread earner of the family and due to his death whole family members suffers an irreparable loss from all sides. Respondent

No.1/wife of the deceased lost the association of her husband and all enjoyment of life, respondent Nos. 2 and 3/minor son have lost love, affection, support and guidance of their father and respondent No.4/widow mother has lost the love and affection and support of her son at her old age as she was fully dependent upon his deceased son.

13. Keeping in mind the facts and circumstances of the present case, I find no discrepancy in the order of the learned Tribunal in granting Rs.1,00,000/- each for loss of love and affection and loss of consortium and Rs.25,000/- for funeral expenses.

14. Finding no merits in the instant appeal, the same is dismissed accordingly.

15. Consequently, the Registry of this Court is directed to release the statutory amount in favour of the appellant/Insurance Company and the balance compensation in favour of the respondents/claimants in terms of the award dated 02.07.2013 on taking necessary steps by them.

SURESH KAIT, J.

MAY 16, 2014 Sb/jg