Delhi High Court
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Sh. Vijay Pal &Ors.; on 22 March, 2016
$~32
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 22nd March, 2016
+ MAC.APP. 66/2014
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. J.P. N. Shahi, adv.
Versus
SH. VIJAY PAL &ORS. ..... Respondent
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT
R.K.GAUBA, J (ORAL):
1. By judgment dated 29.08.2013 in MAC Petition No. 09/2012, the
motor accident claims tribunal (the tribunal) awarded compensation in the
sum of ` 11,89,698/- with interest in favour of the claimants (first and
second respondents herein) on account of death of their bachelor son
Satyaveer @ Tinku aged 21 years, in a motor vehicular accident that
occurred on 15.12.2011 involving motor vehicle bearing No. HR 58 8161
(the offending vehicle) admittedly insured against third party risk with the
appellant company (insurer).
2. By the appeal at hand, the insurance company challenges the
computation of compensation towards loss of dependency in the sum of `
10,22,112 on the ground the income of the deceased notionally assessed at `
8112 per month, it being the rate of minimum wages payable to a
matriculate workman had added future prospects of increase to the extent of
50% to which the insurer takes exception.
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.
5. Since there is no proof of actual regular gainful employment of the
deceased and since there is no proof of any progressive rise in the earnings,
the loss of dependancy has to be calculated on the basis of income notionally
assessed without the element of future prospects.
6. Since the deceased was a bachelor, 50% is to be deducted towards
personal & living expenses. Thus, the monthly loss of dependency is `
4,056/-. The tribunal adopted the multiplier of 14 on the basis of age of the
claimant and rightly so. Thus, the total loss of dependency is computed as `
(4056 X 12 X 14) ` 6,81,408. The loss of dependency, thus, has to be
reduced by (10,22, 112 - 6,81,408) ` 3,40, 704/-. In this view, the total
compensation is reduced to (11,89,698- 3,40,704) ` 8,48, 994/-, rounded off
to ` 8,49,000/- . It shall carry interest as levied by the tribunal.
7. It is noted that the tribunal did not apportion the compensation
awarded. By order dated 22.01.2014, the insurance company had been
directed to deposit the entire awarded amount with upto date interest with
the Registrar General, out of which 80% was allowed to be released to the
claimants. It is assumed that the said release would be in equal proportions.
In this view, it is directed that Registrar General shall now calculate the
amount to be released to the claimants in terms of the award modified as
above and release the entire balance, if any, to the second respondent
(mother) only, refunding the excess with statutory deposit, if any, to the
insurance company.
8. The appeal is disposed of in above terms.
R.K. GAUBA
(JUDGE)
MARCH 22, 2016
nk
