Delhi High Court
Sultan Singh Rana & Anr vs Pradeep Kumar & Ors (The United ... on 15 March, 2016
$~5
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 15th March, 2016
+ MAC.APP. 630/2015
SULTAN SINGH RANA & ANR ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Dheeraj, Adv.
versus
PRADEEP KUMAR & ORS (THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE
CO LTD) ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. P Acharya, Adv. for R-3
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT
R.K.GAUBA, J (ORAL):
1. The appellants had filed claim petition under Sections 166 and 140 of
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MV Act) on 31.03.2006 before the motor
accident claims tribunal (tribunal) seeking compensation on account of death
of their son Amit Rana then aged 18 years, in a motor vehicular accident that
had occurred on 26.12.2005 involving the motor vehicle described as
Scorpio bearing registration No.DL 4C 8866, admittedly insured against
third party risk with the third respondent (insurer) for the period in question.
2. The tribunal granted the said claim petition by judgment dated
21.05.2013 awarding compensation in the sum of ₹5,25,312/- in favour of
the claimants (parents), calculating the compensation thus :
Sl. No Compensation under various heads Amount awarded
1. Loss of dependency Rs. 3,90,312/-
2. Loss of love & affection Rs. 1,00,000/-
3. Funeral expenses Rs. 25,000/-
4. Loss of estate Rs. 10,000/-
5. Total Rs. 5,25,312/-
3. The claimants have felt aggrieved on the ground that while calculating
the loss of dependency, the tribunal did not add the element of future
prospects and further that the award under the non-pecuniary heads of
damages was inadequate.
4. Having heard learned counsel and gone through the tribunal's record,
this Court finds no substance in the appeal.
5. The deceased was still a young person aged 18 years whose
engagement in any avocation was not proved. Though it was vaguely
claimed that he was earning by taking tuitions, no clear proof was adduced.
In these circumstances, the tribunal assessed the income notionally on the
basis of minimum wages payable to a matriculate.
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.
8. In above facts and circumstances there is no error in the calculation of
loss of dependency. Following the view taken in Rajesh & Ors. v. Rajbir
Singh & Ors., (2013) 9 SCC 54, the award under head of non-pecuniary
damages also cannot be faulted.
9. The appeal is devoid of substance and is dismissed.
R.K. GAUBA
(JUDGE)
MARCH 15, 2016
VLD
