Delhi High Court
Reliance General Insurance Co ... vs Sudha And Ors. on 7 April, 2016
$~30
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 7th April, 2016
+ MAC.APP. 721/2014 & CM No.12733/2014
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD.
..... Appellant
Through: Mr. A K Soni, Adv.
versus
SUDHA AND ORS. ..... Respondent
Through: None
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT
R.K.GAUBA, J (ORAL):
1. By judgment dated 17.05.2014, motor accident claims tribunal
(tribunal) decided accident claim case (MACT No.134/13/14) which had
been instituted on 05.01.2013 by the claimants (first to eighth respondents)
seeking compensation for death of Pappu Mandal in a motor vehicular
accident that had occurred on 04.05.2012 involving rash driving of motor
vehicle described as car bearing registration No. DL-12C-0191 (the
offending vehicle), which was admittedly insured against third party risk
with the appellant insurance company for the period in question. On the
basis of inquiry, the tribunal, by judgment dated 17.05.2014, upheld the
case of the claimants that the accident had occurred due to rash driving of
the offending vehicle and thus, fastened the liability on the insurer to
indemnify registered owner of the said vehicle assessing the compensation
as under :
1. Loss of dependency (Rs.8,424/- X 15 X 12) = Rs. 15,16,320/-
2. Loss of love and affection = Rs. 1,00,000/-
3. Loss of consortium = Rs. 1,00,000/-
4. For funeral expenses = Rs. 25,000/-
5. Loss of estate = Rs. 10,000/-
Total = Rs. 17,51,320/-
minus Rs. 50,000/- (interim award)
= Rs. 17,01,320/-
2. The insurance company has come up in appeal questioning the above
compensation awarded by the tribunal taking objection to the addition of
50% on account of future prospects of increase. In spite of notice, none had
appeared for the claimants on the last date of hearing. The situation
remains same even today.
3. Having heard the counsel for the appellant and gone through the
record, it is found that the appeal must be allowed.
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. The evidence with regard to the employment and earnings of the
deceased would not show that he was entitled to any periodical increase in
the income, his earnings having been assessed notionally on the basis of
minimum wages. Since the deceased was survived by eight dependent
family members, 1/5th has to be deducted towards personal & living
expenses. Therefore, monthly loss of dependency comes to (7,020 x 4 ÷ 5)
Rs.5,616/-. The deceased was 38 years old on the relevant date and thus,
the multiplier of 15 applies. Thus, the total loss of dependency comes to
(5,616 x 12 x 15) Rs.10,10,880/-. Adding the non-pecuniary damages in
the total sum of Rs.1,35,000/-, the total compensation comes to (10,10,880
+ 1,35,000) Rs.11,45,880/- rounded off to Rs.11,46,000/-.
7. Following the consistent view taken by this Court [see judgment
dated 22.02.2016 in MAC.APP. 165/2011 Oriental Insurance Co Ltd v.
Sangeeta Devi & Ors.], the rate of interest is increased to 9% per annum
from the date of filing of the petition till realization.
8. By order dated 08.08.2014, the insurance company had been directed
to deposit the entire award with up-to-date interest with the Registrar
General out of which 70% was allowed to be released in favour of the
claimants with the balance to be kept in fixed deposit with UCO Bank,
Delhi High Court Branch for one year renewable from time to time.
9. The Registrar General is directed to calculate the shares payable to
the claimants in terms of the above directions and release the same with
proportionate interest in their favour in terms of the aforementioned
direction. If there is any short fall, the same shall be deposited by the
insurance company with the Registrar General within 30 days of today. On
the other hand, if excess has been deposited or released, the same shall be
refunded with statutory deposit, if made, to the insurer.
10. The appeal is disposed of in above terms.
R.K. GAUBA
(JUDGE)
APRIL 07, 2016
VLD
