Delhi High Court
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Vidya Rani & Ors on 19 April, 2016
$~18
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 19th April, 2016
+ MAC.APP. 121/2014
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. ..... Appellants
Through: Mr. Ravinder Singh & Ms. Raveesha
Gupta, Advs.
versus
VIDYA RANI & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Aishwarya Satija, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT
R.K.GAUBA, J (ORAL):
1. Parmanand Yadav, a 48 years old person, died in a motor vehicular
accident that occurred on 21.07.2006 about 8 p.m. when the two wheelor
scooter bearing registration No. DBJ 5367 (the scooter) driven by him was
involved in a collision with Maruti Car bearing No. BR 1F 3337 (the
offending vehicle), admittedly insured against third party risk for the period
in question with the appellant insurance company (insurer). His widow and
children filed accident claim case (MACT No. 85/2007) on 24.01.2007
seeking compensation, impleading the insurer as the party respondent in
addition to motor vehicle involved in the offending vehicle.
2. The tribunal held inquiry and, by judgment dated 26.11.2013, upheld
the case of the claimants (first to third respondents herein) about accident
having been caused due to rash driving of the car. The claimants had
pleaded before the tribunal that the deceased was employed in a private
service with Bhagwati Poly Plast, Wazirpur, Delhi and sought to prove the
said contention by Sanjay Yadav (PW-3) proprietor of the said concern.
Though PW-3 deposed about the engagement of the deceased as a salesman,
in absence of any records relating to such employment, the tribunal was not
satisfied and, therefore, proceeded to assess the loss of dependency on the
basis of minimum wages of an unskilled worker (Rs. 3,271). In computing
compensation, it added the element of future prospects and, thus, calculated
the loss of dependency at Rs. 4,42,260/- and added Rs. 1 lakh towards loss
of consortium, Rs. 25,000/- each towards loss of love & affection and
funeral expenses and Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of estate and, thus, awarded
total compensation to Rs. 6,02,260/- with interest @ 7.5 % per annum from
the date of filing of the petition calling upon the insurer to pay.
3. The insurer has come up in appeal questioning the loss of dependency
contending that the element of future prospects could not have been added.
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. Since the income was assessed notionally, the element of future
prospects will have to be kept aside and there being no evidence of any
progressive rise in income, the element of future prospects will have to be
kept aside.
7. Keeping in view the number of dependents (3), 1/3 rd is deducted
towards personal & living expenses and having regard to the age (48 years),
the multiplier of 13 is to be applied.
8. In above view, the total loss of dependency is worked out at (3,271 x
2 ÷3 x 12 x 13) Rs. 3,40,184/-, rounded off to Rs. 3,41,000/-.
9. Following the view taken in Rajesh & Ors. v. Rajbir Singh & Ors.,
(2013) 9 SCC 54 and Shashikala V. Gangalakshmamma (2015) 9 SCC 150,
compensation in the sum of Rs. 1 lakh each on account of loss of love &
affection and loss of consortium and Rs. 25,000/- each towards loss of estate
and funeral expense are added. Thus, the total compensation payable in the
case is computed as (3,41,000 + 2,50,000) Rs. 5,91,000/-.
10. 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.
11. The tribunal had apportioned Rs. 1 lakh to the second claimant
(second respondent) and Rs. 50,000/- to the third claimant (third respondent)
and the balance to the widow first claimant (first respondent). Since the
award has been reduced, the share of the widow in the principal amount
shall stand reduced accordingly. However, the amount payable on account
of increase in the rate of interest in entirety shall go to her.
12. The award is modified as above.
13. The insurance company had been directed by order dated 05.02.2014
to deposit the awarded compensation with upto date interest with the
Registrar General within the period specified and out of the same 70% was
released. The Registrar General shall now calculate the sums payable to the
claimants and release the same with proportionate interest in their favour in
terms of the aforementioned direction, refunding the excess, if any, with
statutory deposit, if made, to the insurer. Conversely, if more amount is
required to be paid, the insurer shall be obliged to deposit the same with the
tribunal within 30 days of this judgment whereupon it shall be released with
interest accordingly.
14. The appeal is disposed of in above terms.
R.K. GAUBA
(JUDGE)
APRIL 19, 2016/nk
