Delhi High Court
Reliance General Insurance Co Ltd vs Roshan Lal & Ors on 30 March, 2016
$~6
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 30th March, 2016
+ MAC.APP. 679/2012
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD
..... Appellant
Through Mr. P Acharya, Adv.
versus
ROSHAN LAL & ORS
..... Respondent
Through Mr. A S Rajput, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT
R.K.GAUBA, J (ORAL):
1. Anil @ Manju, a youth aged 22 years, was helping the driver of motor
vehicle described as HR 14B 8772 in reversing when he was crushed against
the wall on the rear side and died as a result of injuries suffered on
27.05.2008. He was a bachelor and his parents (first to second respondents
herein) brought accident claim case under Sections 166 and 140 of Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 (MV Act) before the motor accident claims tribunal
(tribunal) on 30.08.2008 which was registered as petition No.564/2008. The
driver, owner and insurer (the appellant) of the offending vehicle were
impleaded as respondents in the said proceedings. The tribunal held inquiry
and on that basis passed judgment on 07.04.2012 returning a finding that the
accident and death had occurred due to negligence on the part of the driver
of the said vehicle. It assessed compensation in the sum of `6,38,600/- and
awarded it with interest from the date of filing of the petition directing the
appellant to satisfy the award, calculating it thus :
SL. No. On Account of Amount (Rs.)
1. Loss of dependency Rs.5,88,600/-
2. Loss of Consortium Rs. 10,000/-
3. Loss of Love & affection @ Rs. Rs.20,000/-
10,000/-(each petitioner)
4. Loss of Estate Rs. 10,000/-
5. Towards funeral expenses Rs. 10,000/-
Total Rs.6,38,600/-
2. By appeal at hand, the insurer questions the finding of negligence
submitting that it was the deceased who was himself negligent and also
raising the issue of calculation of loss of dependency on the ground the
future prospects to the extent of 50% were wrongly added even though the
income was notionally assessed on the basis of minimum wages and further
that the multiplier of 18 was adopted on the basis of age of the deceased
which was inappropriate. Per contra, the claimants submit that the award
under the non pecuniary heads of damages is grossly inadequate.
3. The contention of the insurance company on the question of
negligence cannot be accepted in the face of clear evidence showing that the
deceased was helping the driver of the offending vehicle in reversing it, at
which stage he was crushed to death against the rear wall. In reversing the
vehicle, onus on the driver of the vehicle to be careful was even more,
particularly when he was aware that the person assisting him was
sandwiched between the vehicle and the wall on the rear side.
4. On the question of compensation, however, contentions of both sides
are found to be correct and therefore, the issue has to be revisited.
5. In absence of formal proof of income, the tribunal correctly adopted
the minimum wages of `3,633/- per month as the notional income. But it
fell into error by adding future prospects and in applying the multiplier of
18.
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 SCC 166.
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. It is well settled that the multiplier is to be adopted in such cases on
the basis of age of the deceased or of the claimants, whichever is higher.
[G.M. Kerela SRTC vs Susamma Thomas (1994) 2 SCC 176; U.P.S.R.T.C.
vs Trilok Chandra (1996) 4 SCC 362; New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs
Charlie AIR 2005 SC 2157; New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Shanti Pathak
(Smt.) & Ors., (2007) 10 SCC 1; Ramesh Singh & Anr. vs Satbir Singh &
Anr. (2008) 2 SCC 667; National Insurance Company Ltd. vs Shyam Singh
& Ors. (2011) 7 SCC 65; Ashwinbhai Jayantilal Modi vs Ramkaran
Ramchandra Sharma & Anr. (2015) 2 SCC 180]
9. The material on record shows that the age of the father (first claimant)
at the relevant point of time was 53 while that of the mother (second
claimant) was 46 years. The average age being 49 years, the multiplier of
13 has to be applied. Since the deceased was a bachelor, 50% has to be
deducted towards personal and living expenses. Thus, the monthly loss of
dependency comes to (3,633 ÷ 2) `1,817/- per month. On the multiplier of
13, total loss of dependency comes to (1,817 x 12 x 13) `2,83,452/- rounded
off to `2,84,000/-.
10. Following the view taken in Rajesh & Ors. v. Rajbir Singh & Ors.,
(2013) 9 SCC 54 and Shashikala V. Gangalakshmamma (2015) 9 SCC 150,
compensation in the sum of `1 lakh on account of loss of love & affection
`25,000/- each towards loss of estate and funeral expense are added. Thus,
the total compensation payable in the case comes to (2,84,000 + 1,50,000)
`4,34,000/-.
11. It is noted that the tribunal had granted only 7.5% as the rate of
interest. Following the consistent view taken by this Court [see judgment
dated 22.02.2016 in MAC.APP. 165/2011 Oriental Insurance Co Ltd v.
Sangeeta Devi & Ors.], the rate of interest is increased to 9% per annum
from the date of filing of the petition till realization.
12. By order dated 06.07.2012, the insurer had been directed to deposit
entire awarded amount with UCO Bank, Delhi High Court branch within the
period specified whereupon it was directed to be held in fixed deposit for a
period of six months to be renewed from time to time. The Registrar
General shall now calculate the amount payable to the claimants in terms of
the award modified as above and release the same from out of the amount
deposited, refunding the excess, if any, with statutory deposit, if made, to the
insurance company. Conversely, if more amount is required to be paid, the
insurer shall deposit the same with the tribunal within 30 days of today.
13. The appeal is disposed of in above terms.
R.K. GAUBA
(JUDGE)
MARCH 30, 2016
VLD
