Delhi High Court
Shriram General Insurance Co Ltd vs Saroj Devi & Ors on 11 February, 2016
Author: R. K. Gauba
$~30
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 11th February, 2016
+ MAC.APP. 536/2014 & CM No.10300/2014 (stay)
SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Sameer Nandwani, Adv.
versus
SAROJ DEVI & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. S N Parashar, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT
R.K.GAUBA, J (ORAL):
1. The short issue raised in this appeal by the insurance company
concerns the element of future prospects of increase in income to the
extent of 30% being added while calculating the loss of dependency in
the claim case arising out of death of Prithvi Singh in motor vehicular
accident that occurred at about 1.30 PM on 19.01.2002 involving tempo
bearing registration No.HR-69 8313 driven by the fifth respondent and
owned by the sixth respondent, the vehicle admittedly being covered by
an insurance policy issued by the appellant company against third party
risk for the period in question.
2. The contention raised by the insurance company which was asked
to indemnify the insured (the owner of the offending vehicle) for
payment of compensation in the sum of `16,05,421/- is that there was
no evidence adduced to show that the deceased was in permanent
employment against a salary which had the prospects of increase over
the time.
3. The Tribunal considered the evidence about the income in (para
19 of) the impugned judgment as under :
"19. The deceased was stated to be doing the work of
Security Guard in Absolute Security Services Pvt. Ltd. and
was stated to be earning lastly Rs.9,010/- per month.
Petitioners have produced and examined PW2 Sh. Raj
Kumar Gaur, Assistant, Absolute Security Services, who
have proved attested copy of appointment letter of deceased
as EX.PW2/1 and also proved computerized photocopy of
the salary record from the month of July, 2011 to January,
2012 as EX.PW2/2. The cross-examination carried on by
the respondent no. 3 is not suggestive of anything which
may discard the testimony of this witness as to the service
of deceased as Security Guard and his last drawn salary.
Therefore, I hold that at the time of death of deceased, he
was working as Security Guard in Absolute Security
Services and was drawing lastly salary of Rs.9,010/- per
month."
4. The learned counsel for the claimant has shown document
Ex.PW-1/3 which was also proved during the inquiry indicating the
payment details for the month of December, 2011 as maintained by the
employer company in respect of its workers including the deceased.
The said document reflects that the deceased was paid `6,656/- as the
basic pay with certain other allowances, totalling to `9,010/- also
contributing to provident fund and risk cover under scheme of
Employees State Insurance Corporation for the necessary benefits. This
evidence reassures that the deceased was not only in permanent employ
but also subject to periodic increase in his wages. Thus, there is no
substance in the grievance agitated in the appeal. The appeal is liable to
be dismissed.
5. Statutory deposit, if made, shall be refunded.
6. By order dated 24.07.2014 the insurance company had been
directed to deposit the entire awarded amount with up-to-date interest in
this Court out of which 70% was allowed to be released to the
claimants. The Registrar General is directed to release the balance out
of the said deposit.
7. The appeal is disposed of in above terms.
R.K. GAUBA
(JUDGE)
FEBRUARY 11 2016
VLD
