Reliance General Insurance Co. ... vs Sneh Lata & Anr.
2014 Latest Caselaw 6025 Del

$~A-37
*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%                               Date of Decision: November 21, 2014

+     MAC.APP. 1056/2014

      RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. ..... Appellant
                   Through  Mr. A.K. Soni, Adv.

                          Versus

      SNEH LATA & ANR.                                     ..... Respondents
                   Through             None.

      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH

JUSTICE JAYANT NATH, J. (Oral)

1. By the present appeal the appellant Insurance Company seeks to impugn the Award dated 30.09.2014.

2. The brief facts which led to filing of the claim petition are that on 26.05.2010 at about 5.00 am the deceased Sh.Tarun Singhal alongwith other family members was coming from Vaishno Devi Shrine, Jammu and Kashmir to Delhi in a Qualis car. When the car reached near Pipli, Kurukshetra, Haryana, the car collided with a Tata Truck (Dumper) which was wrongly parked in the middle of the road without any indicator/parking lights on. As a result thereof all the occupants of Qualis car sustained grievous injuries. But of them Sh.Tarun Singhal died on the spot.

3. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal concluded that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the

offending vehicle.

4. On compensation, the Tribunal awarded the following compensation:-

       Loss of dependency                               Rs.10,44,576/-
       Loss of love & affection                          Rs.1,00,000/-
       Funeral expenses                                    Rs.25,000/-
       Loss of estate                                      Rs.10,000/-
                       Total                            Rs.11,79,576/-

5. The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased based on minimum wages for a matriculate person on the date of the accident at Rs. 6,448/- per month. As the age of the deceased was 19 years, 50% was added towards future prospects. Further, 1/2 was deducted towards personal & living expenses as the deceased was a bachelor. Applying the multiplier of 18, loss of dependency was calculated as Rs. 10,44,576/-.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant seeks to impugn the compensation awarded stating that the Tribunal has wrongly held that the accident was caused due to negligence of the offending vehicle being the Tata Truck and that it is a case of contributory negligence. He further contends that the Tribunal has wrongly applied the multiplier based on the age of the deceased for the calculation of loss of dependency and that it should be based on the age of mother of the deceased. Lastly, the learned counsel for the appellant contends that the Tribunal has erred in awarding 50% towards future prospects when the income was assessed based on minimum wages.

7. On contributory negligence, the Tribunal has placed reliance on the evidence of PW1, an eyewitness to the accident. In her evidence by way of affidavit she states that that the accident had taken place due to negligence and wrong parking of the offending vehicle. The Tribunal has further placed

reliance on the certified copies of the criminal case record comprising the challan, FIR, site plan, post mortem report etc. and held that the criminal record goes to show that the accident has taken place due to the negligence of Respondent no. 2.

8. I may also note that the argument about contributory negligence has not been raised by the appellant/Insurance Company in the written statement nor any such submission seems to have been made before the Tribunal. The Tribunal has nowhere discussed the said issue, now being raised.

9. Accordingly, in the light of the above evidence, i.e. evidence of PW1, the challan and other documents filed before the criminal court, there are no reasons to differ with the findings recorded by the Tribunal that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle.

10. It may be noted that this Court in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pushpa Rana, 2009 ACJ 287 has held that the factum of negligence can be concluded in causing the accident, based on the charge-sheet and other connected records of the criminal case.

11. On the issue of the multiplier being used for the calculation of loss of dependency, reference may be had to the judgment of this Court in the case of Mohd. Hasnain & Ors. vs. Jagram Meena & Ors. MANU/DE/0715/2014; 2014 (142) DRJ 303. This Court held that the multiplier has to be based on the age of the deceased. That was a case where the age of the deceased was 39 years.

12. This Court in the said case of Mohd. Hasnain & Ors. vs. Jagram Meena & Ors. (supra) relied on the judgments of the Supreme Court in case of M. Mansoor vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., MANU/SC/1042 and the

judgment of the Supreme Court in the case Amrit Bhanu Shali & Ors. vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. MANU/SC/0537/2012. In Amrit Bhanu Shali (supra) the Supreme Court held as follows:-

"15. The selection of multiplier is based on the age of the deceased and not on the basis of the age of the dependants. There may be a number of dependants of the deceased whose age may be different and, therefore, the age of the dependants has no nexus with the computation of compensation."

13. M. Mansoor vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd (supra) was a case where the deceased was a bachelor of 24 years of age and the Supreme Court held that the selection of the multiplier is based on the age of the deceased and not the age of the dependants. Further, in the case of Amrit Bhanu Shali & Ors. vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. (supra) the deceased was a bachelor aged 26 years and the Court applied the multiplier of 17.

14. I may further note that in MAC APP.761/2012 Rakesh and Ors. vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. vide judgment dated 02.04.2014 where the deceased was 24 years the Tribunal had taken the multiplier of 13 considering the age of the mother of the deceased, as he was a bachelor. This court relying upon the earlier judgments of this Court in the case of Mohd. Hasnain & Ors. vs. Jagram Meena & Ors. (supra) applied a multiplier of 18 based on the age of the deceased. Against the said judgment the appellant had filed an SLP before the Supreme Court. The said SLP No.5612/2014 was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 10.10.2014.

15. In view of the above, I do not find any error in the multiplier of 18 being used by the Tribunal for the calculation of loss of dependency.

16. Coming to the issue of future prospects, I can take judicial note of the

fact that minimum wages for a matriculate in 2002 were Rs. 3115.4/- P.M. and in 2012 were Rs.8528/- P.M. It is obvious that the prescribed minimum wages have more than doubled in ten years.

17. In case of Rajesh & Ors. vs. Rajbir Singh & Ors.(2013) 9 SCC 54, the Supreme Court held that in the case of self employed or those on fixed wages, when the victim is below 40 years an addition of 50% should be made in the wages for the purpose of computing loss of future earnings.

18. In the case of Smt.Savita vs. Bindar Singh & Ors., (2014) 4 SCC 505, the Supreme Court was of the view that in the case of self employed or those engaged on fixed wages, 30% increase in income over period of time would be appropriate. In the case of V.Mekala vs. M.Malathi & Anr., 2014 ACJ 1441, the Supreme Court in the case of injury to a student who was studying in Class XI aged 16 years had awarded 50% increase for future prospects.

19. Further, this court in the case of ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company vs. Angrej Singh & Ors. in MAC APP. 846/2011 in judgment dated 30.09.2013 had gone into this issue and had noted the judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of Smt.Sarla Verma and Ors. vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr. (2009) 6 SCC 121, Reshma Kumari & Ors. vs. Madan Mohan & Anr. 2013 ACJ 1253 and other judgments and concluded that the Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh & Ors. vs. Rajbir Singh & Ors., (supra) has held that the future prospects should be given to persons who are self- employed or on fixed wages.

20. I may further note that this court in MAC APP.761/2012 Rakesh and Ors. vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. judgment dated 02.04.2014 also dealt with the issue of future prospects. This Court had in that case where

the deceased was 24 years old added 50% to the income towards future prospects for computing loss of dependency based on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh & Ors. vs. Rajbir Singh & Ors.(supra). Against the said judgment the appellant had filed an SLP before the Supreme Court. The said SLP No.5612/2014 was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 10.10.2014.

21. In view of the above, there are no reasons to differ with the reasoning of the award granting 50% increase on account of future prospects.

22. In view of the above, in my opinion there is no merit in the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant. There are no reasons to differ with the reasoning of the award of the Tribunal.

23. The present appeal is accordingly dismissed.

24. Statutory amount, if any, be refunded to the appellant.

JAYANT NATH, J NOVEMBER 21, 2014 sh