Delhi High Court
United India Insurance Co Ltd vs Khem Chand & Ors on 29 January, 2016
Author: R. K. Gauba
$~12
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 29th January, 2016
+ MAC.APP. 439/2015 & CM No.9668/2015
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD
..... Appellant
Through Mr. P Acharya and Mr. K L
Nandwani, Advs.
versus
KHEM CHAND & ORS
..... Respondents
Through Mr. B R Sharma, Adv. for R-1 &
2
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT
R.K.GAUBA, J (ORAL):
1. The award of compensation of the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal ("the Tribunal") by judgment dated 10.04.2015 in claim case
registered as suit No.699/2014 is challenged on three short grounds by
the insurance company which otherwise admits its liability against third
party risk respecting the offending vehicle.
2. In calculating the award of compensation on the petition brought
by the parents of Praveen Kumar, who died in the motor vehicular
accident on 24.09.2014 and who admittedly was a bachelor, the Tribunal
has factored in future prospects to the extent of 50% even though the
income of the deceased to the tune of ₹15,000/- from his business of
leather garments was not strictly proved and, thus, the Tribunal adopted
the minimum wages for unskilled workers at ₹8,554/- as the benchmark.
The insurance company is also aggrieved for the reason that in
calculating the loss of dependency, the Tribunal adopted the multiplier
of 18, this having regard to the age (24 years) of the deceased rather
than that of the mother, admittedly 45 years old at the relevant point of
time. The insurance company further questions the levy of interest @
9% per annum pleading that it be reduced.
3. The learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 ad 2 (collectively,
the claimants) fairly conceded that the multiplier has to be adopted on
the basis of the age of the deceased or the claimants, whichever is
higher. [Kerala State Road Transport Corporation V. Susamma Thomas
(1994) 2 SCC 176 and U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and Ors.
vs. Trilok Chandra and Ors., (1996) 4 SCC 362. Having regard to the
dictum in Sarla Verma (Smt.) & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation &
Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121, the multiplier of 14 should have been adopted
to calculate the loss of dependency.
4. In the case reported as Sarla Verma (supra), 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.
5. 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.
6. In view of the above, no benefit on account of future prospects
can be accorded. Thus, the loss of dependency needs to be reworked.
7. It is noted that the Tribunal deducted 50% on account of personal
and living expenses and took the multiplicand of ₹4,277/- as the loss of
monthly dependency. By this reckoning the total loss of dependency, on
the multiplier of 14, works out to (4277 x 12 x 14) ₹7,18,536/-.
8. Adding the non-pecuniary damages on account of love and
affection, funeral expenses and loss of estate, as granted by the Tribunal
in the total sum of ₹1,35,000/-, the total compensation payable comes to
₹8,53,536/- rounded off to ₹8,54,000/-. The award of compensation is
accordingly modified.
9. Having regard to the consistent view in Municipal Corporation of
Delhi, Delhi V. Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy and Ors.,
(2011) 14 SCC 481; Surti Gupta V. United India Insurance Company
and Ors., 2015 (3) SCALE 795; Basappa V. T. Ramesh, (2014) 10 SCC
789; Kumari Kiran V. Sajjan Singh (2015) 1 SCC 539 and Syed Sadiq
etc. V. Divisional Manager, United India Ins. Company (2014) 2 SCC
735, there is no justification for reducing the rate of interest.
10. The appellant insurance company had been directed to deposit
50% of the awarded amount with proportionate interest by order dated
22.05.2014 out of which a portion was allowed to be released to the
claimants. The balance of the deposit lying with UCO Bank, Delhi
High Court Branch shall also be released in favour of the claimants
forthwith. The Registrar General shall take suitable steps in this regard
on the claimants approaching him with proper application.
11. In terms of the modification, the insurance company shall be
liable to deposit the balance of the compensation payable in terms of the
modified award within 30 days of today with the Tribunal which shall
release it in accordance with the directions given in the impugned order,
as modified.
12. Statutory deposit, if made, shall be refunded.
13. The appeal is disposed of in above terms.
R.K. GAUBA
(JUDGE)
JANUARY 29, 2016
VLD
