Delhi High Court
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Rafat Parvin& Ors on 5 April, 2016
$~23
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 5th April, 2016
+ MAC.APP. 609/2014 & CM No. 10997/2014
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. L.K. Tyagi, Adv.
versus
RAFAT PARVIN& ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. S.N. Parashar, Adv. for R-1 & 2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT
R.K.GAUBA, J (ORAL):
1. Mohd. Faizan, a bachelor, 20 years in age, died as a result of injuries
suffered in a motor vehicular accident that occurred on 17.02.2012 statedly
on account of negligent driving of Wagon R bearing registration No. DL
7CH 1492 (the offending vehicle) which was admittedly insured against
third party risk with the appellant insurance company (insurer). His parents
(mother 38 years and father 40 years old at the relevant point of time), now
first and second respondents (the claimants), brought an accident claim
(MAC Petition No. 71/2012) before the motor accident claims tribunal (the
tribunal) on 28.04.2012 impleading the insurer, driver and owner of the
offending vehicle as respondents.
2. The tribunal, after inquiry, by judgment dated 11.04.2014, awarded
compensation in the sum of ₹ 13,05,428/- with interest @ 9% per annum
which includes ₹ 1,00,000/- towards loss of love & affection and ₹ 10,000/-
towards loss to estate and ₹ 25,000/- towards funeral expenses besides ₹
10,78,272/- towards loss of dependency, in addition to medical expenditure
(₹ 92,156/-incurred for treatment of the deceased for injuries before his
death).
3. The insurer, by the appeal at hand, questions the computation of loss
of dependency on the ground that the notional income (Rs. 6656) having
been assessed on the basis of minimum wages, the future prospects to the
extent of 50% was wrongly added and multiplier of 18 was wrongly
adopted. Per contra, the claimants point out that the compensation awarded
is inadequate referring to Shashikala V. Gangalakshmamma (2015) 9 SCC
150.
4. In the case reported as Sarla Verma & Ors. vs. Delhi Transport
Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121, Supreme Court, inter-alia, ruled
that the element of future prospects of increase in income will not be granted
in cases where the deceased was "self employed" or was working on a
"fixed salary". Though this view was affirmed by a bench of three Hon'ble
Judges in Reshma Kumari & Ors. Vs. Madan Mohan & Anr., (2013) 9 SCC
65, on account of divergence of views, as arising from the ruling in Rajesh
& Ors. vs. Rajbir & Ors., (2013) 9 SCC 54, the issue was later referred to a
larger bench, inter-alia, by order dated 02.07.2014 in National Insurance
Company Ltd. vs. Pushpa & Ors., (2015) 9 SCC 166.
5. Against the above backdrop, by judgment dated 22.01.2016 passed in
MAC Appeal No. 956/2012 (Sunil Kumar v. Pyar Mohd.), this Court has
found it proper to follow the view taken earlier by a learned single judge in
MAC Appeal No. 189/2014 (HDFC Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd. v.
Smt. Lalta Devi & Ors.) decided on 12.1.2015, presently taking the decision
in Reshma Kumari (Supra) as the binding precedent, till such time the law
on the subject of future prospects for those who are "self-employed" or
engaged in gainful employment at a "fixed salary" is clarified by a larger
bench of the Supreme Court.
6. It is well settled that the multiplier has to be adopted on the basis of
average age of the parents of the deceased, and, therefore, multiplier of 15
should have been adopted in the present case.
7. Since the deceased was a bachelor, loss of monthly dependency
comes to (6,656 ÷ 2) Rs. 3358. On the multiplier of 15, the loss of
dependency in the present case comes to (3358 x 12 x 15) Rs. 5,99,040/-.
The award of Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of estate is revised to Rs. 25,000/-.
Adding the other components awarded by the tribunal, the total
compensation comes to (5,99,040+1,00,000+ 25,000+ 25,000+ 92,156) Rs.
841,196/- rounded off to Rs. 8,42,000/-. Needless to add, it shall carry
interest as levied by the tribunal from the date of filing of the petition till
realization. The share apportioned in favour of the second claimant (second
respondent) is reduced to Rs. 2,00,000/- with corresponding interest, the
entire balance to go to the first claimant/respondent.
8. The award is modified as above.
9. By order dated 14.07.2014, the insurance company had been directed
to deposit Rs. 8,00,000/- with the tribunal within the period specified which
was allowed to be disbursed. The insurance company shall now deposit the
balance of its liability in terms of the award (as modified above) with the
tribunal within 30 days whereupon it shall be released to the claimants.
10. The appeal is disposed of in above terms.
11. Statutory deposit, if made, shall be refunded.
R.K. GAUBA
(JUDGE)
APRIL 05, 2016
nk
