Delhi High Court
Shriram General Insurance Co Ltd vs Raj Kumar Sharma & Ors on 3 March, 2016
$~20
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 03rd March, 2016
+ MAC.APP. 34/2014
SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. P. Acharya & Mr. Sameer
Nandwani, Advs.
versus
RAJ KUMAR SHARMA & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. D. P. Sharma, Adv. for R-1 & 2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT
R.K.GAUBA, J (ORAL):
1. The insurance company has come up in appeal questioning the
computation of compensation granted in the sum of `12,68,760/- with
interest in favour of the first and second respondents by judgment dated
07.11.2013 on their petition under Sections 166 & 140 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 (the MV Act), registered as suit no.183/2013 on account
of death of Jagmohan Sharma in a motor vehicular accident on 25.01.2013
involving vehicle bearing registration no.DL-1LE-9118 (the offending
vehicle) concededly insured with it against third party risk. In calculating
the said amount of compensation, the tribunal assessed the income of the
deceased notionally, in absence of better evidence, on the basis of minimum
wages of `9594/- payable to a graduate at the time of accident and added the
component of future prospects of increase to the extent of fifty percent
(50%) following the view taken by the Supreme Court in Santosh Devi vs.
National Insurance Co. Ltd. , (2012) 4 Scale 559 and Rajesh & Ors. vs.
Rajbir Singh & Ors., (2013) 6 Scale 563.
2. The insurance company is aggrieved only on the ground that the
future prospects should not have been added. Per contra, the claimant
referred to Sanobanu Nazirbhai Mirza & Ors. vs. Ahmedabad Municipal
Transport Service, (2013) 12 Scale 329, wherein a bench of two Hon'ble
judges of Supreme Court have taken a view similar to the one in Santosh
Devi (supra).
3. 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.
4. 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 income was subject to
any periodic increase.
5. In above facts and circumstances, loss of dependency has to be
recalculated without addition of the element of future prospects.
6. The deceased was 31 years old, and was a bachelor but the tribunal
noted that the age of the mother was 45 years and on that basis it adopted
multiplier of 14 and rightly so. Fifty percent (50%) needs to be deducted
towards personal and living expenses [Sarla Verma (supra)]. Therefore, loss
of monthly dependency comes to (9594÷2) `4797/-. The total loss of
dependency is calculated as (4797x12x14) `8,05,896/-
7. It is, however, noted that the tribunal awarded only `25,000/- towards
loss of love & affection and `10,000/- towards loss of estate, in addition to
funeral expenses in the sum of `25,000/-. The award of non-pecuniary
damages on account of loss of love & affection and loss of estate is on the
lower side. Following the view taken by the Supreme Court in Rajesh &
Ors. v. Rajbir Singh & Ors., (2013) 9 SCC 54 & Shashikala V.
Gangalakshmamma (2015) 9 SCC 150, the said non-pecuniary damages
need to be increased to `1,00,000/- & `25,000/- respectively. Therefore, the
total compensation payable in the case comes to
(8,05,896+1,00,000+25,000+25,000) `9,55,896/-, rounded off to `9,56,000/.
8. It is also noted that the tribunal has awarded only seven & half (7.5%)
as interest. This is deficient. Following the consistent view taken by this
court, the rate of interest is enhanced to nine percent (9%) from the date of
filing of the petition till realization (see judgment dated 22.02.2016 in
MAC.APP. 165/2011 Oriental Insurance Co Ltd v. Sangeeta Devi & Ors.).
9. The award is modified as above.
10. By order dated 15.01.2014, the insurance company had been directed
to deposit the entire awarded amount with up-to-date interest with the
Registrar General within five weeks thereof and out of such deposit eighty
percent was allowed to be released. The Registrar General is now directed
to recalculate the amount payable to the claimant in terms of award as
modified above and release the same from out of the balance. Excess
deposit shall, however, be refunded with statutory deposit, if made.
11. The appeal is disposed of in above terms.
R.K. GAUBA
(JUDGE)
MARCH 03, 2016
ssc
