Delhi High Court
Munish Dimple @ Dimple & Ors vs The Manager, Rajasthan State Road ... on 22 April, 2016
$~12 & 13
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 22nd April, 2016
+ MAC.APP. 180/2013
THE MANAGER, RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT
CORPORATION
..... Appellant
Through: None
versus
MUNESH @ DIMPLE & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Navneet Goyal, Adv. for R-1 to
4
+ MAC.APP. 215/2015
MUNISH DIMPLE @ DIMPLE & ORS ..... Appellants
Through: Mr. Navneet Goyal, Adv.
versus
THE MANAGER, RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT
CORPORATION & ORS (ICICI LOMBARD GEN INS CO LTD)
..... Respondents
Through: None
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT
R.K.GAUBA, J (ORAL):
1. Arvind Kumar died as a result of injuries suffered in a motor
vehicular accident that took place on 04.12.2011 involving negligent
driving of bus bearing registration no.RJ 05P 1418 (offending vehicle)
which had hit Maruti car bearing registration No.DL 9CL 6687 (the car) in
which the deceased was travelling. The members of the family dependent
on him (appellants in MAC.APP.No.215/2015) instituted an accident claim
case (suit No.23/12) on 03.02.2012 under Sections 166 & 140 of Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 (MV Act) impleading, amongst others, Rajasthan State
Road Transport Corporation (RSRTC) as the respondent, it being the
registered owner of the offending vehicle. After inquiry by judgment dated
19.10.2012, compensation in the sum of Rs.16,58,538/- was awarded with
interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of filing till realization, directing
RSRTC (appellant in MAC.APP.No.180/2013) to pay. The compensation
awarded includes Rs.16,13,538/- calculated towards loss of dependency, on
the basis of minimum wages (Rs.8,152/-) payable to a skilled worker at the
relevant point of time, to which future prospects of increase to the extent of
30% was added, on the multiplier of 17 (the age of the deceased being
taken as 30 years), besides Rs.10,000/- each towards loss of consortium and
funeral expenses and Rs.25,000/- towards loss of love and affection.
2. By its appeal (MAC.APP.180/2013), RSRTC questioned the
computation of compensation mainly taking exception to the element of
future prospects being added and the age of the deceased being assumed to
be 30 years. Per contra, the claimants by their appeal
(MAC.APP.No.215/2015) urge for the non-pecuniary damages and rate of
interest to be increased.
3. At the hearing, counsel for RSRTC would not appear to argue.
Having heard the learned counsel for the claimants and gone through the
record, this Court finds substance in the objection to the element of future
prospects being 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 SCC166.
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 there was no proof as to the nature of occupation or earnings,
the minimum wages of Rs.8,112/- have to be the basis on which the loss of
dependency has to be worked out without the addition of future prospects.
As the number of dependent family members was four, 1/4th is deducted
towards personal and living expenses. Thus, the monthly loss of
dependency comes to (8,112 x ¾) Rs.6,084/-.
7. The driving license (Ex.PW1/2) showed the date of birth to be
18.10.1981. In the absence of any proof to the contrary, the said document
can be safely accepted as sufficient evidence as to the age of the deceased.
Since the death had occurred on 04.12.2011, the deceased was just over 30
years old when the death occurred. Therefore, the multiplier of 17 has been
correctly adopted.
8. Thus, the total loss of dependency comes to (6,084 x 12 x 17)
Rs.12,41,136/- rounded off to Rs.12,42,000/-.
9. There is substance in the grievance as to the inadequacy of non-
pecuniary damages. It is noted that the tribunal also failed to add any
compensation on account of loss to estate. 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.
10. Thus, the total compensation payable in the case comes to
(12,42,000/- + 2,50,000/-) Rs.14,92,000/-. 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 award is modified accordingly.
12. By order dated 22.02.2013 in MAC.APP.No.180/2013, the appellant
RSRTC had been directed to deposit the entire awarded amount with up-to-
date interest with UCO Bank, Delhi High Court branch within four weeks
and out of the said deposit 60% was allowed to be released to the claimants,
the balance having been kept in fixed deposit receipts in the name of first
claimant (the widow).
13. The Registrar General shall now 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
directions. 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.
14. The statutory amount, if paid, shall also be refunded.
15. The appeals are disposed of in above terms.
R.K. GAUBA
(JUDGE)
APRIL 22, 2016
VLD
