Delhi High Court
Tata Aig General Insurance Co Ltd vs Sushila Devi & Ors on 8 February, 2016
$~7
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 8th February, 2016
+ MAC.APP.317/2011
TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD ..... Appellant
Through Mr. Arbaaz Hussain, Adv. for Ms.
Shantha Devi Raman, Adv.
versus
SUSHILA DEVI & ORS ..... Respondent
Through Mr. S N Parashar, Adv. for R-1
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT
R.K.GAUBA, J (ORAL):
1. Upon inquiry into motor accident claim case No.327/2008 on the
petition under Sections 166 and 140 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MV
Act) brought by the first to third respondents respecting the death of
Sandeep @ Sonu in motor vehicular accident that occurred on 30.04.2008
involving truck bearing registration No.HR-55/E-8580 (the offending
vehicle), compensation in the sum of ₹6,12,000/- was granted holding the
appellant and respondents No.4 and 5 jointly and severally liable to pay.
The insurance company has brought this appeal under Section 173 of MV
Act primarily questioning the computation of loss of dependency in the
sum of ₹5,17,000/- on the ground that the element of future prospects for
increase has been wrongly added inasmuch as in absence of formal proof
to such effect, the Tribunal was constrained to adopt the notional income
of ₹4,057/- rounded off to ₹4,100/- on the basis of minimum wages
accruing to the deceased, a 21 year old bachelor, the claimant being the
mother and two younger brothers.
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. This applies to the
matter at hand because the claimant here has not led any evidence
showing the salary was subject to any periodic increase. Indeed, the
learned counsel for the claimants fairly concedes that no formal proof
about the regular employment of the deceased could be mustered as the
claim about he being driver with M/s R K Tour and Travels was not
supported by any formal corroborative material.
4. In these circumstances, the loss of dependency needs to be
reworked without adding the element of future prospects. Since the
deceased was an unmarried person, the personal and living expenses
would need to be deducted to the extent of 50%. Thus, the monthly loss
of dependency comes to ₹2,050/-. The Tribunal adopted the multiplier of
14, in which regard no grievance is pressed. Thus, the total loss of
dependency comes to (2050 x 12 X 14) ₹3,44,400/- rounded off to
₹3,45,000/-. Adding the non-pecuniary damages awarded in the sum of
₹95,000/-, the total compensation comes to ₹4,40,000/-.
5. The award of compensation granted by the Tribunal in favour of
the first to third appellants in this matter is reduced to ₹4,40,000/-. It
shall carry interest in terms of the impugned judgment. The Tribunal had
apportioned the compensation amongst the claimants by specifying the
amounts. Since compensation has been reduced, the shares of the
claimants shall stand reduced proportionately.
6. By order dated 06.05.2011, the insurance company had been
directed to deposit the entire award with up-to-date interest out of which
75% was allowed to be released. The Registrar General shall recalculate
the amount payable to the claimants in terms of the award modified as
above and release the balance, if any, to the claimants and if claimants
have received excess, they shall return the same to the insurance
company. If it be so required the insurance company may approach the
tribunal for assistance in recovery in accordance with law. The excess in
deposit shall be refunded to the appellant.
7. The appeal is disposed of in above terms.
8. Statutory deposit, if made, shall be refunded.
R.K. GAUBA
(JUDGE)
FEBRUARY 08, 2016
VLD
