Delhi High Court
The New India Assurance Co Ltd vs Smt Suman Sharma & Anr on 2 May, 2016
$~14 & 22
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 02nd May, 2016
+ MAC.APP. 141/2014
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. J P N Shahi, Adv.
versus
SMT SUMAN SHARMA & ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Anshuman Bal, Adv. for R-1 to 5
+ MAC.APP. 1011/2014
SUMAN SHARMA & ORS ..... Appellants
Through: Mr. Anshuman Bal, Adv.
versus
NEW INDIA ASS CO LTD ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. J P N Shahi, Adv. for R-1
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT
R.K.GAUBA, J (ORAL):
1. Subhash Chand, aged 39 years, diploma holder from ITI, qualified in
the trade of "tool and dye" from a government institute, previously
employed with Daewoo Motor India Ltd. at a salary of `15,000/- per month,
died on account of injuries suffered in a motor vehicular accident that
occurred on 17.06.2012 due to negligent driving of truck bearing No.HR
63A 8111 (the offending vehicle) which was admittedly insured against
third party risk with the appellant insurance company (insurer) for the period
in question. His wife, children and parents, first to fifth respondents
(claimants), filed an accident claim case (MAC petition No.109/12) on
27.07.2012 under Sections 166 & 140 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MV
Act), impleading the insurer as respondent in addition to the driver and
owner of the offending vehicle. After inquiry, the tribunal, by judgment
dated 03.01.2014, awarded compensation in the total sum of `19,61,920/-
with interest at 9% per annum in favour of the claimants, the said amount
inclusive of `17,26,920/- calculated as loss of dependency on the assumed
income of `12,792/- per month, after addition of future prospects over and
above the minimum wages of a skilled worker.
2. The insurer which has been called upon to indemnify and pay has
come up with appeal (MAC.APP.No.141/2014) to challenge the award on
the ground the addition of future prospects was incorrect. The claimants
filed cross-objections which were treated as appeal
(MAC.APP.No.1011/2014) seeking enhancement. At the hearing, however,
the learned counsel for the claimants submitted that the cross-objections are
not pressed and only the appeal of the insurance company is contested.
3. Having heard both sides and having gone though the tribunal's record,
this Court finds the contentions raised by the insurer to be devoid of
substance. Daewoo Motors India Ltd. with which the deceased was
previously employed, such employment having been proved by sufficient
evidence (Ex.PW1/12) in the form of salary slips up to March, 2003 had
gone into liquidation. It came out during the inquiry that the official
liquidator would not produce the relevant records as to terms of engagement.
It is the contention of the claimants that the deceased had continued to be
engaged by the said entity, even during liquidation but the requisite proof
was not forthcoming. In the facts and circumstances, the tribunal assessed
the income notionally on the basis of minimum wages of a skilled worker,
and rightly so. The objection to the addition of future prospects of increase
against above backdrop is found to be unfair in the face of clear evidence
that the deceased was not only well-qualified and skilled with sufficient
experience in the trade in which he had been engaged by Daewoo Motor
India Ltd. but also the fact that he is proved to have continued to incur
similar expenditure as before on his dependent family members, including
on account of education of his children. Having regard to the level of the
said expenditure, it cannot be believed that he would have been surviving at
minimum wages only.
4. Given the past services with Daewoo Motors India Ltd. and the
progressive rise that he is shown to have gained in such employment, even if
it were to be assumed that after the said company had gone into liquidation,
the deceased was constrained to switch jobs, the element of progressive rise
in income in other employment is inherent in his qualifications and past
experience.
5. For the above reasons, the appeal is unmerited and liable to be
dismissed.
6. By order dated 11.02.2014 in MAC.APP.No.141/2014, the insurance
company had been directed to deposit the entire awarded amount with up-to-
date interest with the Registrar General within the period specified and out
of the same 80% was allowed to be released, the balance kept in fixed
deposit receipt with UCO Bank, Delhi High Court branch.
7. The Registrar General shall now release the balance in favour of the
claimants and refund the statutory amount, if deposited, to the insurance
company.
8. Both the appeals are disposed of in above terms.
R.K. GAUBA
(JUDGE)
MAY 02, 2016
VLD
