Taslim Parvin & Anr vs Jugendra Singh & Ors (Oriental ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 685 Del

$~26
*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                                  Date of Decision: 29th January, 2016
+             MAC.APP.No. 88/2016 & CM No. 3172/2016 (delay)

       TASLIM PARVIN & ANR                                ..... Appellants
                         Through:       Ms. Rupika Singh, Adv. for Mr.
                                        Navneet Goyal, Adv.

                         versus

       JUGENDRA SINGH & ORS (ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO
       LTD)                               ..... Respondents
                         Through:       Mr. Amit Gaur, Adv. for R-3.


CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
                         JUDGMENT

R.K.GAUBA, J (ORAL):

1. The appellants were claimants in MACT case no.94/2013 which was decided by the motor accident claims tribunal ("the tribunal") by a common judgment dated 28.09.2015 awarding compensation in the sum of Rs.6,12,430/- on account of death of Sarfaraz. The appellant no.1 is the mother of the deceased while appellant no.2 is his sister. The deceased was 19 years old at the time of death in the motor vehicular accident that occurred on 10.04.2012. It was claimed that he was gainfully employed as scrap dealer earning `10,000/- per month. No proof of income was adduced. The tribunal took note of the fact that the deceased was residing in Baghpat, Uttar Pradesh and in absence of any proof that he was working for gain anywhere else, it assumed the

notional income having regard to the minimum wages payable in the State of U.P. Taking note of the fact that the first appellant, the mother, was 39 years old at the time of the death, the multiplier of 15 was applied to work out the loss of dependency.

2. The appellants are aggrieved on the grounds that the notional income should have been assessed on the basis of minimum wages payable in the Union Territory of Delhi, the multiplier should have been higher and that the future prospects should have been factored in.

3. Having heard the learned counsel for appellant, it is found that there is no substance in either of aforementioned submissions.

4. The tribunal has duly considered the question as to where the deceased was actually working. In absence of any proof or even claim that he was working in Delhi, the minimum wages of State of U.P were rightly adopted.

5. The law is well settled that in case of compensation on account of death, loss of dependency is to be computed by adopting the multiplier having regard to the age of the deceased or the claim whichever is higher. [U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and Ors. vs. Trilok Chandra and Ors., (1996) 4 SCC 362 and General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum vs. Mrs. Susamma Thomas & Ors,. (1994) 2 SCC 176].

6. 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.

7. 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 pleaded about gainful employment at a fixed salary and has not led any evidence showing the salary was subject to any periodic increase.

8. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal with the application is found unmerited and is accordingly dismissed in limine.

R.K. GAUBA (JUDGE) JANUARY 29, 2016/ssc