Delhi High Court
National Insurance Co Ltd vs Mohd Akhtar & Ors on 28 October, 2014
$~A-1 & 45
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 28.10.2014
+ MAC.APP. 441/2014
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD
..... Appellant
Through Mr. Pankaj Seth, Adv.
versus
MOHD AKHTAR & ORS
..... Respondents
Through Mr. S.N. Parashar, Adv.
+ MAC.APP. 961/2014
MOHD AKHTAR & ANR.
..... Appellants
Through Mr. S.N. Parashar, Adv.
versus
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD
..... Respondent
Through Mr. Pankaj Seth, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH
JAYANT NATH, J. (Oral)
1. MAC.APP.441/2014 is filed by the insurance company seeking to
impugn the Award dated 10.03.2014. MAC.APP.961/2014 is filed by the
claimant seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
2. The brief facts which led to filing of the claim petition are that on
01.05.2013, the deceased Sh. Asmat @Mohd. Ashmat was sitting on a
motorcycle which was stationary on the extreme side of the road at Loni Road,
Uttar Pradesh. Suddenly a dumper driven by Respondent no. 3 in a rash and
negligent manner came from behind and hit the motorcycle. The deceased fell
down and was crushed under the wheels of the dumper. He was removed to
GTB Hospital, Dilshad Garden, Delhi where he was declared brought dead.
3. Based on the evidence on record the Tribunal concluded that the accident
took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle.
4. On compensation, the Tribunal awarded the following amount:
Loss of dependency Rs.11,84,400/-
Loss of Love and affection Rs.1,00,000/-
Funeral expenses Rs.25,000/-
Loss of Estate Rs.10,000/-
Total Rs.13,19,400/-
5. The Tribunal took the income of the deceased as the minimum wages
applicable in of Delhi for a matriculate prevailing at the time of the accident i.e
Rs.9,400/- per month. Future prospects of 50% were awarded as the age of the
deceased was 18 years at the time of the accident. Further, 50% was deducted
towards personal expenses as the deceased was a bachelor. Taking into
consideration the age of the parents the Tribunal took the multiplier of 14. The
loss of dependency was thus calculated as Rs.11,84,400/-.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/insurance company has
strenuously urged the Tribunal has wrongly applied the minimum wages for a
matriculate in Delhi as Respondents no. 1 and 2 are permanent residents of
U.P., the accident also took place in U.P. and the deceased did his schooling
from a school in Ghaziabad. He states that the minimum wages of U.P should
be applied. Learned counsel for the appellant also contends that the Tribunal
has wrongly added future prospects to the income of the deceased for the
calculation of loss of dependency.
7. On the issue of appropriate minimum wages, it is on record that the
claimants and the deceased are the residents of Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh. The
voter cards of the parents have been placed on record as Ex. PW-1/3 and PW-
1/4. The deceased also attended school in Ghaziabad, U.P. High school
examination certificate of the deceased is placed on record as Ex. PW1/1.
8. Hence, in my opinion, applicable minimum wages should be of the State
of Uttar Pradesh for a skilled worker at the time of the accident i.e. Rs. 6,296/-
per month.
9. Coming to the issue of future prospects, learned counsel appearing for
the appellant has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of
Ashvinbhai Jayantilal Modi vs. Ramkaran Ramchandra Sharma 2014 (11)
SCALE 427 which was a case where the deceased was a 19 year old bachelor
and a student of medicine. The Tribunal after taking the notional income as
Rs.18,000/- deducted 1/3 towards personal expenses for the calculation of loss
of dependency. The Supreme Court in that case noted that the deceased was a
student of medicine, which is one of the rewarding professions and increased
the notional income of the deceased from Rs.18,000/- per month to Rs 25,000/-
per month. No challenge was made on the issue of future prospects. Thus, the
abovesaid judgment does not overrule the earlier judgments of the Supreme
Court.
10. I can take judicial note of the fact that minimum wages for a matriculate
worker 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.
11. 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 below 40 years an addition of 50% should be made in the
wages for the purpose of computing loss of future earnings.
12. 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.
13. In the case of V.Mekala vs. M.Malathi & Anr., 2014 ACJ 1441, the
Supreme Court in the case of injury of a student who was studying in Class XI
aged 16 years had awarded 50% increase for future prospects.
14. It is stated that the deceased at the time of the accident was 18 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.
15. The present appeal stands disposed of. The statutory amount if deposited
be refunded to the appellant/insurance company.
MAC.APP. 961/2014
16. Now coming to MAC. APP. 961/2014. This appeal is filed by the
claimants only on one ground that the Tribunal has erroneously applied the
multiplier of 14 taking into consideration the age of the parents to compute the
loss of dependency and not the age of the deceased.
17. 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 which held that the multiplier has to be based on the age of the
deceased. That was a case where the age of the deceased as a bachelor was 39
years.
18. 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 case
Amrit Bhanu Shali & Ors. vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.
MANU/SC/0537/2012. In the latter case, 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."
19. 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 on 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.
20. Hence, in my view, taking the age of the deceased into consideration i.e.
18 years, the correct multiplier applicable for the calculation of loss of
dependency would be 18.
21. Thus, the loss of dependency now comes to Rs.10,19,952/- [(6296 +
50% - ½ ) x 12 x 18]. Total compensation would be Rs.11,54,952/- as follows.
Loss of dependency Rs. 10,19,952/-
Loss of Love and affection Rs.1,00,000/-
Funeral expenses Rs.25,000/-
Loss of Estate Rs.10,000/-
Total Rs.11,54,952/-
22. Appeal stands disposed of.
23. Interim order stands vacated.
24. Statutory amount paid by the appellant at the time of filing of the appeal
be refunded.
JAYANT NATH, J
OCTOBER 28, 2014
sh
