Delhi High Court
Icici Lombard General Insurance ... vs Rd Raju & Ors on 28 November, 2014
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgement reserved on: 17.07.2014
Judgment pronounced on : 28.11.2014
+ MAC.APP. 783/2010
ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL
INSURANCE COMPANY LTD ..... Appellant
Through Ms.Suman Bagga, Advocate.
versus
RD RAJU & ORS ..... Respondents
Through Mr.S.Devarajan, Proxy Counsel for
Ms.Kavitha K.T., Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH
JAYANT NATH, J.
1. By the present appeal the appellant Insurance Company seeks to impugn
the Award dated 18.08.2010.
2. The brief facts which led to filing of the claim petition under Section 166
of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the present appeal are that Smt. Shylaja
on 05.07.2006 in the evening with her sister-in-law and minor son Arjun
stopped near the post office of Nanakpura at the road side foot path for buying
a bhutta for her son. A Honda car driven in a rash and negligent manner hit
Smt. Shylaja when the driver took a sharp turn at a high speed. She sustained
fatal injuries. She was declared brought dead at the hospital.
3. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal concluded that the
accident took place due the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the
offending car.
4. On compensation, the Tribunal awarded the following compensation:-
Loss of dependency Rs.9,60,000/-
On account of love and affection Rs.75,000/-
Loss of Estate Rs.10,000/-
Loss on funeral expenses Rs.10,000/-
On account of consortium Rs.10,000/-
Total Rs.10,65,000/-
5. A perusal of the Award shows that the Tribunal noted that as per the
claimants No.1 to 5 the deceased was working as a staff nurse with Sadhu
Vaswani Medical Centre earning Rs.5,000/- per month. In cross-examination
this averment was reiterated. The Tribunal hence took the income of the
deceased on the date of the accident as Rs.5,000/- per month. On account of
price rise/inflation, the Tribunal enhanced the said income by 50% for future
prospects. The income was hence assessed at Rs.7,500/- for purposes of
computing loss of dependency. There being three family members, 1/3rd was
deducted for expenditure on self. Applying a multiplier of 16 as the deceased
was 32 years old, loss of dependency was computed at Rs.9,60,000/-.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant seeks to impugn the
compensation awarded stating that it is on the higher side on two grounds. She
firstly submits that the grant of future prospects @ 50% and enhancement of
the assessed income by the same for the propose of computing loss of
dependency is contrary to the various judgments of the Supreme Court. She
relies upon 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 and Reshma Kumari & Ors. vs. Madan Mohan & Anr., 2013 ACJ 1253
to contend that the grant of future prospects is contrary to the accepted legal
position. She next submits that the Tribunal has wrongly assessed the income
of the deceased at Rs.5,000/- per month as the income was not proved by the
claimants and no evidence was led to show that the deceased was earning
Rs.5,000/- per month.
7. I may note that as per the order of this court dated 23.11.2010 notice was
issued in this appeal limited to the aspect of future prospects only. Hence, it is
not permissible for the appellant to contend about the assessment of income
done by the Tribunal based on the evidence on record.
8. Coming to the issue of future prospects. I can take judicial note of the
fact that minimum wages for an unskilled worker in 2002 were Rs.2679.70/-
P.M. and in 2012 were Rs.7020/- P.M. It is obvious that the prescribed
minimum wages have more than doubled in ten years.
9. In case of Rajesh & Ors. vs. Rajbir Singh & Ors.(supra), 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.
10. 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.
11. 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.(supra), Reshma Kumari & Ors. vs. Madan Mohan &
Anr.(supra) and other judgments and concluded that the Supreme Court in the
case of Rajesh & Ors. vs. Rajbir Singh & Ors., (2013) 9 SCC 54 has held that
the future prospects should be given to persons who are self-employed or on
fixed wages. This court further held that there is no conflict in the legal position
as set out in the judgments of Reshma Kumari & Ors. vs. Madan Mohan &
Anr(supra) and Rajesh & Ors. vs. Rajbir Singh & Ors. (supra).
12. I may further note that this court in MAC APP.761/2012 Rakesh and
Ors. vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. vide judgment dated 02.04.2014
had in a 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.
13. In view of the above, in my opinion there is no merit in the contention of
the learned counsel for the appellant. There are no reasons to differ with the
reasoning of the award granting 50% increase on account of future prospects.
14. The present appeal is accordingly dismissed.
15. Statutory amount, if any, be refunded to the appellant.
16. All interim orders stand vacated.
JAYANT NATH, J
NOVEMBER 28, 2014/rb
