Delhi High Court
National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Smt. Indu Devi & Ors on 9 February, 2016
$~30
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 09th February, 2016
+ MAC.APP. 672/2014
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Amit Gaur, Adv.
versus
SMT. INDU DEVI & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. S. N. Parashar, Adv. for
respondent nos.1 to 6.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT
R.K.GAUBA, J (ORAL):
1. By judgment dated 19.05.2014, motor accident claims tribunal
(the tribunal) awarded compensation in the sum of `17,03,980/- with
interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition
(02.01.2013) under Section 166 and 140 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
(the MV Act) till realization in favour of the respondent nos. 1 to 6
herein on account of death of Shambhu Das in motor vehicular accident
that had occurred on 24.11.2012 involving car bearing registration
no.HR-13F-7301 (the offending vehicle), concededly insured against
third party risk with the appellant company for the relevant period. The
insurance company is in appeal with short issue questioning the method
of computation, to be specific, pleading that the element of future
prospects of increase in income to the extent of 50% should not have
been factored in.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. The deceased was working as a rickshaw puller and, therefore, he
will have to be treated as a self employed person. In this view, the
element of future prospects in increase could not have been added. The
loss of dependency, therefore, needs to be recomputed.
5. The tribunal took the minimum wages to `7254/- payable to an
unskilled worker at the relevant period as the notional income. It
deducted one fourth towards personal and living expenses having regard
to the fact that number of dependants was six. Thus, the loss of monthly
dependency works out to (7254x3/4) `5441/-. The deceased was 40
years old on the date of death and, therefore, multiplier of 15 has been
rightly adopted (Sarla Verma & Ors. vs. Delhi Transport Corporation &
Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121). The total loss of dependency, thus, is
calculated as (5441x12x15) `9,79,380/-, rounded off to `9,80,000/-.
Adding the non-pecuniary damages as awarded by the tribunal in the
total sum of `2,35,000/-, thus, the total compensation payable to the
respondent nos.1 to 6 is calculated at `12,15,000/-.
6. The appeal is, thus, allowed. The compensation is reduced to
`12,15,000/-. It shall carry interest as levied by the tribunal.
7. The tribunal had apportioned `8,53,980/- in favour of the first
respondent (the widow), distributing the remainder equally amongst
others. Whilst the share of the first respondent shall remain the same as
fixed by the tribunal, the balance shall be apportioned equally amongst
the remaining claimants, the amounts to be dealt with in the manner
directed by the tribunal in the impugned judgment.
8. By order dated 30.07.2014, the insurance company had been
directed to deposit the entire awarded amount with accumulated interest
with the Registrar General within four weeks of the order and upon such
deposit being made, 75% was allowed to be released in favour of the
claimant, the balance to be kept in fixed deposit in UCO Bank, Delhi
High Court Branch for a period of one year with provision of renewal.
9. The Registrar General is directed to work out the amounts
payable to the claimants in terms of the award modified as above and
release the payments, as due, to the claimants in accordance with their
respective shares and refund the excess amount to the insurance
company.
10. Statutory deposit, if made, shall be refunded.
11. The appeal stands disposed of in above terms.
R.K. GAUBA
(JUDGE)
FEBRUARY 09, 2016/ssc
