Delhi High Court
National Insurance Company Ltd vs Moti Ram & Ors on 1 October, 2014
$~A-9
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 01st October, 2014
+ MAC.APP. 552/2011
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD ..... Appellant
Through Mr.Pankaj Seth & Mr.Shoumik
Mazumdar, Advocates.
Versus
MOTI RAM & ORS ..... Respondents
Through Mr. S.N. Parashar, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH
JAYANT NATH, J. (ORAL)
1. The present appeal is filed by the appellant seeking to impugn the
Award dated 04.02.2011. The claim petition was filed by Respondents no. 1
and 2 under sections 166 and 140 of the M.V. Act, 1988.
2. The brief facts are that on 11.08.2006, the deceased Sh.Ganpat @Raju
was going to market in South Delhi. He was waiting for a bus at the bus
stand of Brar Square Ring Road, Dhaula Kuan. A bus driven in a rash and
negligent manner by Respondent no. 3 ran over Shri Ganpat. He received
head injuries and was taken to Safdarjung Hospital then to Ganga Ram
Hospital and lastly to AIIMS where he was declared brought dead on
12.08.2006.
3. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal held that the accident
took place due to the rash and negligent driving of Respondent no. 3.
4. On compensation, the Tribunal awarded the following amount:
i) Loss of income Rs.10,12,500/-
ii) Love and affection Rs.80,000/-
iii) Funeral charges Rs.20,000/-
----------------
TOTAL Rs.11,12,500/-
5. The Tribunal had assessed the income of the deceased as per the
Salary certificate (Ex.PW-3/3). The certificate states the income as Rs.
8,500/- per month. After deducting the amount given for conveyance, the
tribunal computed the net income as Rs. 7,500/- per month. It was noted that
the deceased was working as a Marketing Executive with M/s GRJ
Footwear, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. The Tribunal awarded 50%
enhancement in the said income on account of inflation/future prospects.
Further, 1/2 was deducted towards personal expenses as the deceased was a
bachelor. Keeping in view the age of the mother of the deceased i.e. 40 years
the Tribunal applied the multiplier of 15. The Tribunal thus calculated the
loss of dependency as Rs.10,12,500/-.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has challenged the award
on two grounds. He firstly submits that the Tribunal has wrongly assessed
the income of the deceased at Rs.7,500/- per month without any evidence on
record. He states that PW3, the employer of the deceased has placed on
record the Salary Certificate before the Tribunal marked as Ex. PW-3/3.
PW3 further states that the attendance register and voucher vide which
salary was paid cannot be produced as the same were gutted in a fire in
2004. Learned counsel further submits that in the absence of salary slips of
the years 2005 and 2006, the salary as mentioned in the Salary certificate
cannot be relied upon. It is secondly submitted that the Tribunal has wrongly
added 50% in the income of the deceased on account of future
prospects/future rise in price as the statement of PW3 cannot be relied upon.
7. As far as the challenge of the appellant to the grant of 50% future
prospects is concerned, it is clearly without merits. I can take judicial note of
the fact that minimum wages for a skilled worker in 2002 were Rs.3,103.7
P.M. and in 2012 were Rs.8,528/- P.M. It is obvious that the prescribed
minimum wages have more than doubled in ten years.
8. 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.
9. 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 a student who was studying in
Class XI aged 16 years had awarded 50% increase for future prospects.
10. It is stated that the deceased at the time of the accident was 23 years
old. In the facts and circumstances of this case, the Tribunal was justified in
adding 50% to the income of the deceased based on future prospects rise due
to price rise.
11. On the issue of income of the deceased being wrongly taken by the
Tribunal in absence of any documentary proof, I do not wish to interfere in
the said finding recorded by the tribunal. I may note that the Tribunal has
used the multiplier based on the age of the mother i.e. her age being 40 years
a multiplier of 15 has been used. This Court in several judgments relying
upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of M. Mansoor vs.
United India Insurance Company Ltd.; MANU/SC/1042/2013 and Amrit
Bhanu Shali vs. National Insurance Company Ltd.; MANU/SC/0537/2012
and the judgment of this High Court in the case of Md. Hasan & Ors. vs.
Jagram Meena; MANU/DE/0715/2014 has held that selection of a
multiplier is based on the age of the deceased and not on the basis of the age
of dependants in the case of a bachelor. In this case the multiplier used by
the Tribunal is erroneous and not as per the judgments of this Court. In this
case the age of the deceased is 23 years. Hence as per the judgment of the
Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma vs. DTC & Anr.,(2009) 6 SCC
121 multiplier of 18 is to be used.
12. Further, I may also note that the Tribunal has not awarded any amount
for Loss of estate.
13. The Supreme Court in the case of Ranjana Prakash & Ors. vs.
Divisional Manager & Anr., 2011 ACJ 2418 (MANU/SC/0897/2011) held
as follows:-
"6.We are of the view that High Court committed an error in
ignoring the contention of the claimants. It is true that the
claimants had not challenged the award of the Tribunal on the
ground that the Tribunal had failed to take note of future
prospects and add 30% to the annual income of the deceased.
But the claimants were not aggrieved by Rs. 23,134/- being
taken as the monthly income. There was therefore no need for
them to challenge the award of the Tribunal. But where in an
appeal filed by the owner/insurer, if the High Court proposes
to reduce the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the
claimants can certainly defend the quantum of compensation
awarded by the Tribunal, by pointing out other errors or
omissions in the award, which if taken note of, would show
that there was no need to reduce the amount awarded as
compensation. Therefore, in an appeal by the owner/insurer,
the Appellant can certainly put forth a contention that if 30% is
to be deducted from the income for whatsoever reason, 30%
should also be added towards future prospects, so that the
compensation awarded is not reduced. The fact that claimants
did not independently challenge the award will not therefore
come in the way of their defending the compensation awarded,
on other grounds. It would only mean that in an appeal by the
owner/insurer, the claimants will not be entitled to seek
enhancement of the compensation by urging any new ground,
in the absence of any cross-appeal or cross-objections."
14. In view of the judgment above I do not think it necessary to look into
the merits of the contentions of the appellant as far as the income of the
deceased as taken by the Tribunal is concerned. Even if they were to be
accepted I would not be inclined to reduce the awarded amount.
15. In view of the above, there is no merit in the contention of the learned
counsel for the appellant. The present appeal is dismissed as the
compensation awarded is just and reasonable.
16. As per the interim order dated 03.06.2011 of this Court, the appellant
was directed to deposit the entire award amount with accumulated interest
with the Registrar. 50 % of the award amount was directed to be released in
favour of the claimants in terms of the order passed by the Claims Tribunal
and the balance was to be kept in a Fixed Deposit with a nationalized bank.
In view of the above order, the balance amount lying with the Bank
alongwith accumulated interest be released to the claimants/ Respondents
no. 1 and 2 proportionately as per the directions in the Award.
17. In case any statutory amount was deposited by the appellant at the
time of filing of the appeal, the same may be refunded to the appellant.
JAYANT NATH, J
OCTOBER 01, 2014
sh
