Delhi High Court
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Pinki Pandey & Ors on 3 May, 2016
$~9
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 03rd May, 2016
+ MAC.APP. 874/2013
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.
..... Appellant
Through Mr. Shoumik Mazumdar, Adv.
versus
PINKI PANDEY & ORS
..... Respondent
Through Ms. Amandeep Kaur and Ms.
Aishwarya Saluja, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT
R.K.GAUBA, J (ORAL):
1. Jai Prakash, 31 year old, self employed person, died in motor
vehicular accident that occurred on 03.10.2009 involving negligent driving
of motor vehicle bearing registration No.DL 1M 1217 (offending vehicle)
admittedly insured against third party risk with the appellant insurance
company (insurer). Six members of his family, dependent upon him, now
first to sixth respondents (claimants) instituted an accident claim case
(MACP No.65/10) on 23.02.2010. The motor accident claims tribunal
(tribunal), by judgment dated 31.07.2013, upheld the case of negligent
driving of the offending vehicle and awarded compensation of `12,53,008/-
with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition
directing the insurer to pay. The said amount includes `10,18,008/- towards
loss of dependency besides `1 lakh towards loss of love & affection,
`25,000/- towards funeral expenses and `10,000/- towards loss of estate.
The loss of dependency was calculated on the minimum wages of `4,713/-
on which element of future prospects of increase of 50% was added. The
tribunal applied the multiplier of 16, in view of the age of the deceased, and
made deduction to the extent of 1/4th towards personal & living expenses.
2. By the appeal at hand, the insurer questions the computation of loss of
dependency only on the ground that future prospects were wrongly added.
Per contra, the claimants submit that award on loss of estate and rate of
interest levied are inadequate.
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 SCC 166.
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 the income was notionally assessed, the loss of dependency has
to be worked out without the element of future prospects. Therefore, the
same is computed as (4,713 x 3 ÷ 4 x 12 x 16) `6,78,672/- rounded off to
`6,80,000/-. Following the view taken in Rajesh & Ors. v. Rajbir Singh &
Ors., (2013) 9 SCC 54 and Shashikala V. Gangalakshmamma (2015) 9 SCC
150, amount towards loss of estate is increased to `25,000/-.
6. Thus, the total compensation payable in the case comes to (6,80,000 +
2,50,000) `9,30,000/-.
7. 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.
8. The award is modified as above.
9. By order dated 27.09.2013, the insurance company had been directed
to deposit the awarded amount with interest with the Registrar General
within the period specified, out of which 80% was allowed to be released to
the claimants. Having regard to the fact that the amount of award has been
reduced, the share of second to fourth respondents is restricted to what has
already been received by each of them. The Registrar General shall
recalculate the amount remaining to be paid and release the same to the first
claimant (widow) alone, refunding the balance to the insurance company
with statutory deposit, if any.
10. The appeal is disposed of in above terms.
R.K. GAUBA
(JUDGE)
MAY 03, 2016
VLD
