Delhi High Court
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Guddo Devi & Ors. on 6 May, 2016
$~10
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 06.05.2016
+ MAC.APP. 394/2013 and CM No.7086/2013
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. K.K. Bhat and Mr. Sandeep Bisht,
Advocates
versus
GUDDO DEVI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Saurabh Sachan, Advocate for R-1
to R-5
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT
R.K.GAUBA, J (ORAL):
1. Mahender Singh, aged 34 years, admittedly engaged in a private
service with no clear proof of regular employment or earnings, died in a
motor vehicular accident that occurred on 16.07.2012 involving negligent
driving of a Maruti Wagon R bearing registration no.DL-2CV-8577
(offending vehicle) concededly insured against third party risk with the
appellant insurance company. On the accident claim petition (suit
no.47/2012) instituted on 22.09.2012, under Sections 166 and 140 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (M.V. Act) by first to fifth respondents
(claimants). The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Tribunal), by judgment
dated 15.03.2013, awarded total compensation in the sum of Rs.13,69,240/-
with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of the petition till
realization, the said amount inclusive of `10,000/- towards funeral
expenses, `25,000/- towards loss of love & affection, `10,000/- towards loss
to estate and `10,000/- towards loss of consortium, the balance `13,14,240/-
calculated as loss of dependency with the multiplier of 16 (rightly so
adopted) after deduction of 1/4th towards personal and living expenses
(again rightly so) after assuming the income at `7,020/- (it being the
minimum wages of an unskilled worker at the relevant point of time)
improved with addition of 30% future prospects.
2. The insurer which has been burdened with the liability to pay is in
appeal and questions only the element of future prospects. Per contra,
claimants argue that the non-pecuniary damages as awarded and the rate of
interest as levied are inadequate.
3. Having heard both sides, this court finds substance in the contentions
of both sides.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. Since there was no proof of regular engagement or progressive rise in
income, the loss of dependency has to be worked out without future
prospects being factored. Therefore, it is re-calculated as (`7020 x 3 /4 x 12
x 16) `10,10,880/-, rounded off to `10,11,000/-.
7. Following the view taken in Rajesh & Ors. v. Rajbir Singh & Ors.
(2013) 9 SCC 54 Shashikala V. Gangalakshmamma (2015) 9 SCC 150, the
non-pecuniary damages in the sum of `1,00,000/- each towards loss of love
& affection and loss of consortium and `25,000/- each towards funeral
expenses and loss to estate are added. Thus, the total compensation in the
case comes to (`10,11,000/- + `2,50,000/-) `12,61,000/-.
8. Following the consistent view taken by this court, the rate of interest
is increased to 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the petition till realization.
[see judgment dated 22.02.2016 in MAC.APP. 165/2011 Oriental Insurance
Co Ltd v. Sangeeta Devi & Ors.].
9. By order dated 03.05.2013, the insurance company had been directed
to deposit the entire awarded compensation with upto date interest with the
Registrar General within the period specified and out of such deposit
seventy percent (70%) was allowed to be released to the claimants in terms
of the impugned judgment, the balance having been kept in fixed deposit in
the UCO Bank, Delhi High Court Branch, New Delhi, initially for a period
of six months with a provision for periodical renewal.
10. The Registrar General shall now calculate the sums payable to the
claimants and release the same with proportionate interest in their favour in
terms of the aforementioned direction, refunding the excess, if any, with
statutory deposits, if made, to the insurer. Conversely, if more amount is
required to be paid, the insurer shall be obliged to deposit the same with
interest with the tribunal within 30 days of this judgment whereupon it shall
be released accordingly.
11. The appeal and the pending application stand disposed of in above
terms.
R.K. GAUBA
(JUDGE)
MAY 06, 2016
yg
