Shriram General Insurance Co. ... vs Smt. Meenakshi & Ors.
2014 Latest Caselaw 6085 Del

$~1
*   IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                            Judgment delivered on: 24th November, 2014

+                           MAC.APP. No.62 /2014


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

                    Versus

SMT. MEENAKSHI & ORS.                                         ..... Respondents
             Represented by:           None.


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 20.09.2013, whereby keeping in view the age of the deceased that is 21 years on the date of accident, i.e., 01.03.2009, the learned Tribunal while granting compensation has added 50% in his actual income towards future prospects.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/Insurance Company submits that as the respondents/claimants have failed to prove that deceased Rajesh Kumar was in regular employment and the learned Tribunal keeping in mind the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, has considered the salary of the deceased as Rs.3,953/-per month applicable to

an unskilled person at the relevant time, therefore, in that situation, no amount should have been granted by the learned Tribunal towards future prospects.

3. To support his arguments, learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the case of Reshma Kumari & Ors. Vs. Madan Mohan & Anr. delivered in Civil Appeal No. 4646 of 2009 on 02.04.2013, wherein the Full Bench of the Supreme Court has held as under:-

"36. The standardization of addition to income for future prospects shall help in achieving certainty in arriving at appropriate compensation. We approve the method that an addition of 50% of actual salary be made to the actual salary income of the deceased towards future prospects where the deceased had a permanent job and was below 40 years and the addition should be only 30% if the age of the deceased was 40 to 50 years and no addition should be made where the age of the deceased is more than 50 years. Where the annual income is in the taxable range, the actual salary shall mean actual salary less tax. In the cases where the deceased was self- employed or was on a fixed salary without provision for annual increments, the actual income at the time of death without any addition to income for future prospects will be appropriate. A departure from the above principle can only be justified in extraordinary circumstances and very exceptional cases."

4. The issue of future prospects raised in the present appeal has been considered 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, wherein while relying upon the dictum of Rajesh and Ors. Vs. Rajbir Singh and Ors. 2013 (6) SCALE 563, this Court held as under:-

"22. The Apex Court in Rajesh has discussed the issue regarding the assessment of future prospects; and has also come to a specific conclusion that the self-employed or persons with fixed wages are entitled for future prospects. The Apex Court succinctly specified the reasons for the same considering the socio-economic changes in the society. It also made thrust on the age of the deceased as one of the factors for computing the future prospects.

23. I note, the Apex Court in Santosh Devi noted the finding in Sarla Verma; and canvassed a different reasoning regarding the assessment of future prospects: one of the factors in the multiplicand.

24. The Apex Court in Santosh Devi, did not refer the matter to a Larger Bench, whereas it followed all the principles formulated in Sarla Verma except the finding in respect of the assessment of future prospects for the persons falling under the category of self-employment / fixed wages.

25. It is legally significant to note the dictum laid down by the Constitution Bench of Apex Court in Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community and Anr. (Supra). The Apex Court held as under:

"12. Having carefully considered the submissions made by the learned senior counsel for the parties and having examined the law laid down by the Constitution Benches in the abovesaid decisions, we would like to sum up the legal position in the following terms :-

(1) The law laid down by this Court in a decision delivered by a Bench of larger strength is binding on any subsequent Bench of lesser or co-equal strength. (2) A Bench of lesser quorum cannot doubt the correctness of the view of the law taken by a Bench of larger quorum. In case of doubt all that the Bench of lesser quorum can do is to invite the attention of the Chief Justice and request for the matter being placed for hearing before a Bench of larger quorum than the

Bench whose decision has come up for consideration. It will be open only for a Bench of coequal strength to express an opinion doubting the correctness of the view taken by the earlier Bench of coequal strength, whereupon the matter may be placed for hearing before a Bench consisting of a quorum larger than the one which pronounced the decision laying down the law the correctness of which is doubted."

26. While considering the case of Santosh Devi, the Apex Court did not feel to refer the matter to a Larger Bench. Therefore, it can be concluded that there is no contradictions in the finding of Sarla Verma and Santosh Devi, in turn the Apex Court extended the scope and ambit of Sarla Verma through Santosh Devi.

27. In view of above, this court is guided by the legal principles as set out in Reshma Kumari and Rajesh in order to assess the just compensation as it is envisaged in Section 168 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. In Reshma Kumari, the Apex Court affirmed the findings of Sarla Verma; and in Rajesh, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has agreed with the dictum of Santosh Devi. Specifically, for the assessment of future prospects in respect of the persons falling under the category of self- employment / fixed wages this court is guided by the dictum laid down in Rajesh. In my considered opinion, there is no contradiction in the dictum laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of Reshma Kumari and Rajesh."

5. Therefore, considering the view taken by this Court in the aforementioned case and the settled legal proposition, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned award dated 20.09.2013 passed by the learned Tribunal.

6. Consequently, the present appeal is dismissed being without any merit.

7. Accordingly, the Registry of this Court is directed to release the statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- in favour of the appellant/Insurance Company and the balance compensation with upto date interest accrued thereon in favour of the respondents/claimants on taking necessary steps by them.

SURESH KAIT (JUDGE) NOVEMBER 24, 2014 sb