Delhi High Court
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Smt. Manisha Devi & Ors. on 22 March, 2016
$~28
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 22nd March, 2016
+ MAC.APP. 719/2013
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. A.K. Soni, Adv.
versus
SMT. MANISHA DEVI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. S.N. Parashar, Adv. for R-1 to 4.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT
R.K.GAUBA, J (ORAL):
1. The short issue raised in this appeal directed against the judgment
dated 16.5.2013 of the motor accident claims tribunal (the tribunal) in motor
accident claim case registered as MACT No. 1207/2010 is with regard to the
addition of future prospects while calculating the loss of dependency. The
claimants (first and fourth respondents herein), while seeking compensation
under Sections 166 and 140 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MV Act) on
account of death of Ajit Kumar, had pleaded that he was engaged in a
private service. The said fact or the earnings in the sum of ₹ 6,000/- per
month could not be proved. The tribunal notionally assessed the income of
the deceased at ₹ 3,934/- per month and calculated the loss of dependency
by adding the element of future prospects.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. Since there is no proof of any progressive increase in the income of
the deceased, the loss of dependency is recomputed, without the element of
future prospects, after deducting 1/4th towards personal & living expenses
(there being four dependants). The monthly loss of dependancy is
calculated as (3934 X 3 /4) ₹ 2,951. On the multiplier of 17 (the deceased
was 26 years old), the total loss of dependany comes to (2951 X 12 X 17)
₹ 6,02,004/- rounded off to ₹ 6,02,000/-. The tribunal awarded non-
pecuniary damages put together at ₹ 2,35,000/-. Adding the said sum, the
total compensation payable in the case comes to (6,02,000 + 2,35,000) ₹
8,37,000. Thus, the compensation is reduced to ₹ 8,37,000/-. It shall carry
interest as levied by the tribunal.
5. The tribunal had apportioned the compensation by specifying the
amounts that will fall in the share of each claimant. Since the compensation
awarded has been reduced, the said directions would need to be modified.
6. By order dated 07.08.2013, 80% of the awarded amount deposited by
the insurer from out of the entire award was allowed to be released, the
balance being kept in fixed deposit receipt with UCO Bank, Delhi High
Court Branch, initially for a period of six months to be renewed periodically.
The Registrar General shall now calculate the amount which is to be
released to the claimants in terms of the impugned judgment. The balance,
if any, shall be entirely paid to the widow (first respondent).
7. The excess in deposit shall be refunded to the insurance company
with statutory deposit, if made.
8. The appeal is disposed of in above terms.
R.K. GAUBA
(JUDGE)
MARCH 22, 2016
nk
