Delhi High Court
Shriram General Insurance Co Ltd vs Prem Singh & Ors on 24 February, 2016
$~13
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 24th February, 2016
+ MAC.APP. 341/2014 & CM No.6519/2014
SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD
..... Appellant
Through Mr. Sameer Nandwani, Adv.
versus
PREM SINGH & ORS
..... Respondent
Through Mr. Azad Ali, Adv. for R-1 & 2
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT
R.K.GAUBA, J (ORAL):
1. Iqbal Singh was helper of a truck bearing No.RJ 05 GA 4042 (the
offending vehicle) driven by Ram Het (the third respondent herein) it being
owned by Dinesh Singh (the fourth respondent herein) and concededly
insured against third party risk with the appellant company (the insured). On
07.09.2012, at about 4.15 PM, he was injured on being crushed by the said
truck against a wall and died in the consequence. Iqbal Singh was 27 year
old and a bachelor. His parents, the first and second respondents
(collectively, the claimants) brought a claim petition on the basis of detailed
accident report (DAR) submitted before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
(the Tribunal) by the local police which had registered first information
report (FIR) No.296/2012 in police station Hazrat Nizamuddin. The case
was registered as suit No.45/2013 to consider grant of compensation.
2. The Tribunal, on the basis of inquiry, awarded compensation in the
sum of Rs.8,26,584/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing of
the petition till realization, by judgment dated 21.01.2014 whereby the
insured was asked to pay in terms of the indemnity clause of the insurance
policy.
3. The insurance company, by appeal at hand, raised the issue of
contributory negligence on the part of the deceased on the plea that he was
standing behind the truck when it was being reversed by its driver and also
questioned the computation of loss of dependency mainly on the ground that
future prospects could not have added.
4. Per contra, the counsel for the claimants refuted the plea of
contributory negligence and argued that the minimum wages payable to non-
matriculates should have been adopted instead of wages payable to an
unskilled worker, having regard to the document showing the deceased to
have failed in the matriculation examination of Rajasthan Education Board
(Ex.PW1/2).
5. This Court finds the contention about contributory negligence as
unmerited. It is clear from the conclusions reached by the tribunal that while
the truck was being reversed, it is the driver who had lost control over the
vehicle which resulted in the deceased getting sandwiched against a wall and
thus being crushed to death. No fault on his part thus can be inferred.
6. This Court finds substance in the argument respecting future prospects
but there is no merit in the contention that the minimum wages were wrongly
adopted inasmuch as there is nothing to show that the deceased fell in the
category of a clerk or non-technical or supervisory staff for which minimum
wages for the class of non-matriculates is separately declared by the
government under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948.
7. 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.
8. 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. This applies to the matter at hand because the claimants
have not led any evidence showing the salary was subject to any periodic
increase.
9. Thus, the loss of dependency is to be calculated taking Rs.7,020/- as
the income of the deceased. Since he was a bachelor, 50% has to be
deducted towards personal and living expenses. Therefore, the monthly loss
of dependency is Rs.3,510/-. The Tribunal adopted the multiplier of 14 on
the basis of age of the mother (42 years), and rightly so. Thus, the total loss
of dependency is calculated as (3,510 x 12 x 14) Rs.5,89,680/-, rounded off
to Rs.5,90,000/-.
10. It is pointed out by the counsel for the claimants that the Tribunal
awarded only Rs.25,000/- towards love and affection and Rs.10,000/-
towards loss of estate, in addition to Rs.25,000/- on account of funeral
expenses. This is inadequate.
11. In view of the above the compensation on account of loss of love and
affection is increased to Rs.1 lakh and loss of estate is increased to
Rs.25,000/- [Rajesh & Ors. vs. Rajbir & Ors. (supra) and Shashikala V.
Gangalakshmamma (2015) 9 SCC 150]. Adding the non-pecuniary damages
in the total sum of Rs.1,50,000/-, the total compensation payable in the case
is calculated as (5,90,000 + 1,50,000) Rs.7,40,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs
and Forty Thousand Only).
12. The award is modified as above. It shall carry interest at the rate
levied by the Tribunal and shall be apportioned in the ratio of 40% (Forty per
cent) in favour of the father and 60% (Sixty per cent) in favour of the mother.
The entire share of the mother shall be put in fixed deposit receipts in three
equal proportions in a nationalized bank in her name for the periods specified
in the Tribunal in the impugned judgment.
13. By order dated 17.04.2014, the insurance company had been directed
to deposit the entire awarded amount with up-to-date interest with Registrar
General within the period specified. Out of the said deposit, 80% was
allowed to be released and the balance kept in fixed deposit receipt in UCO
Bank, Delhi High Court Branch, New Delhi for a period of one year to be
renewed periodically. The Registrar General shall now recalculate the
amounts payable to the claimants and release the balance from out of the
amount retained in fixed deposit receipt as above, refunding the excess to the
insurance company with statutory deposit, if made.
14. The appeal is disposed of in above terms.
R.K. GAUBA
(JUDGE)
FEBRUARY 24, 2016/VLD
