Delhi High Court
The New India Assurance Co Ltd vs Sh Rajesh Prasad Verma & Ors on 29 April, 2016
$~21
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 29th April, 2016
+ MAC.APP. 1179/2013
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Panjak Seth with Mr. Shoumik
Mazumdar, Advs.
versus
SH RAJESH PRASAD VERMA & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Mithilesh Kumar Gupt, Adv. for
R-1 to 7
Mr. Vikram Saini, Adv. for R-9
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT
R.K.GAUBA, J (ORAL):
1. Sarita Kumari, aged 35 years, died in a motor vehicular accident that
occurred on 17.08.2012 involving negligent driving of bus bearing No.HR
55Q 4754 (offending vehicle), which was admittedly insured against third
party risk with the appellant insurance company (insurer) for the period in
question. Her husband and six children, first to seventh respondents
(collectively, the claimants) instituted an accident claim case (MACT case
no.377/2012) on 13.09.2012 impleading, amongst others, the insurer as
respondents. The tribunal held inquiry and, by judgment dated 30.07.2013,
upheld the case of negligent driving of the offending vehicle as the cause for
the accident. It awarded compensation in the sum of ₹20,91,720/- with
interest in favour of the claimants, the said amount inclusive of ₹25,000/-
towards loss of love & affection and ₹10,000/- towards cremation charges
and loss of consortium besides ₹20,46,720/- towards loss of dependency. In
arriving at the said amount of compensation, the tribunal assumed the
income of the deceased at ₹8,528/-, it being the rate of minimum wages
payable to a skilled worker towards matriculate but added 25% towards
future prospects and adopted the multiplier of 16.
2. The insurer which has been fastened with the liability is in appeal
questioning the computation of compensation.
3. The tribunal has referred to judgment dated 30.01.2012 in
MAC.APP.No.590/2011 in matter titled as Royal Sundaram Alliance
Insurance Col Ltd. v. Master Manmeet Singh & Ors. But, the case of the
claimants themselves was that she was engaged in private shops to earn
livelihood. Therefore, her case could not have been equated with that of a
housewife.
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 has been notionally assessed, the element of future
prospects cannot be allowed to be factored in. Having regard to the number
of dependents, 1/5th would need to be deducted towards personal & living
expenses. Thus, the monthly loss of dependency comes to (8,528 x 4 ÷ 5)
₹6,822/-. On the multiplier of 16, the total loss of dependency is worked out
as (6,822 x 12 x 16) ₹13,09,824/- rounded off to ₹13,10,000/-.
7. It is noted that the award under the non-pecuniary heads of damages is
on the lower side. Further, no award has been made towards loss of 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 `1 lakh each on account of loss of love &
affection and loss of consortium and `25,000/- each towards loss of estate
and funeral expense are added. Thus, the total compensation payable in the
case comes to (13,10,000 + 2,50,000) `15,60,000/-.
8. The award is modified accordingly.
9. Needless to add, it shall carry interest as levied by the tribunal.
10. The insurer had been directed by order dated 28.12.2013 to deposit
the entire awarded amount with up-to-date interest with the Registrar
General and out of such deposit, 80% was allowed to be released, the
balance kept in fixed deposit receipt.
11. 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 to the insurer. Conversely, if more amount is required to
be paid, the insurer shall be directed to deposit the same with the tribunal
within 30 days of this judgment whereupon it shall be released with interest
accordingly.
12. The appeal is disposed of in above terms.
R.K. GAUBA
(JUDGE)
APRIL 29, 2016
VLD
