Delhi High Court
Shriram General Insurance Co Ltd vs Om Prakash & Ors on 30 March, 2016
$~15
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 30th March, 2016
+ MAC.APP. 764/2013
SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. P. Acharya & Ms. Nitika
Chaturvedi, Advs.
versus
OM PRAKASH & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. S.N. Parashar, Adv. for R-1 & 2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT
R.K.GAUBA, J (ORAL):
1. Amit Kumar, a student of second year of a professional course of
Bachelor of Business Administration, then 17 years old, died in a motor
vehicular accident that occurred on 29.11.2011 involving a motor vehicle
described as bus bearing No. DL 1PB 0426 (the offending vehicle) which
was admittedly insured against third party risk with the appellant insurance
company (insurer). Upon the claim petition under Sections 166 and 140 of
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 brought by his parents (first and second
respondents herein), registered as Suit No. 340/12, inter alia, on the basis of
detailed accident report (DAR), the motor accident claims tribunal
(tribunal), by judgment dated 06.03.2013, notionally assessed his income on
the basis of minimum wages payable to a matriculate ( ₹ 8112) after adding
30% of future prospects of increase and on the multiplier of 15 on the basis
of age of the mother (38 years), computed the loss of dependency at ₹
9,49,104/- and further after adding ₹ 25,000/- towards loss of love &
affection besides ₹ 10,000/- each towards funeral charges and loss to estate,
granted compensation at ₹ 9,94, 104/- with interest @ 7.5% from the date of
filing of the petition (11.5.2012) till realization.
2. The appellant insurer, by this appeal, questions the addition of future
prospects. Per contra, the claimants raise grievance about inadequacy of
non-pecuniary damages and the interest levied. The contentions of both
sides must be accepted.
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. Therefore, the loss of dependency is calculated on the basis of
notional income at ₹ 8,112/-. Since the deceased was a bachelor, monthly
loss comes to (8112 ÷ 2) ₹ 4,056/-. On the multiplier of 15, the total loss
of dependency is calculated at (4,056 x 12 x 15) ₹ 7,30,080/-. Following
the view taken in Rajesh & Ors. v. Rajbir Singh & Ors., (2013) 9 SCC 54
and Shashikala V. Gangalakshmamma (2015) 9 SCC 150, adding the
element of non-pecuniary heads of damages ₹ 1,00,000/- towards loss of
love & affection and ₹ 25,000/- each towards loss of estate and funeral
expenses, the total compensation payable comes to ₹ 8,80,080/- rounded off
to ₹ 8,80,100/-.-
6. 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.
7. The award is modified accordingly. The award shall be proportioned
equally amongst the two claimants.
8. By order dated 21.08.2013, while the insurance company was called
upon to deposit the entire awarded amount, 80% was allowed to be released,
balance to be kept in fixed deposit with UCO Bank initially for a period of
six months to be renewed from time to time.
9. The Registrar General shall now calculate the amounts payable to the
claimants in terms of the impugned judgment and release the same,
refunding the excess, if any, with statutory deposit to the insurer.
Conversely, if more amount is required to be paid on account of rate of
interest, the insurer shall be directed to deposit the same with the tribunal
within 30 days for it to be released accordingly.
10. The appeal is disposed of in above terms.
R.K. GAUBA
(JUDGE)
MARCH 30, 2016/nk
