Delhi High Court
Reliance Gen Ins Co Ltd vs Babita & Ors on 12 May, 2016
$~22
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 12.05.2016
+ MAC.APP. 119/2014
RELIANCE GEN INS CO LTD ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Arbaaz Hussain for Ms. Shantha
Devi Raman, Advocates
versus
BABITA & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. S.N. Parashar, Adv. for R-1 to 6
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT
R.K.GAUBA, J (ORAL):
1. Bablu Kumar died as a result of the injuries suffered in a motor
vehicular accident that occurred on 15.10.2011 involving negligent driving
of a Tata Tempo bearing registration no.DL-1LK-3096 (offending vehicle),
admittedly insured against third party risk with the appellant insurance
company (insurer) for the period in question. Upon an accident claim case
(MACP 870/11) instituted by his dependent family members, first to sixth
respondents (claimants), the tribunal after inquiry, by judgment dated
31.10.2013, upheld the case of the death having occurred due to the
negligent driving of the offending vehicle and awarded Rs.19,87,192/- as
compensation with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of
the petition till realization, calculating it thus :-
Loss of dependency `17,52,192/-
(`9,126 x 12 x 16)
Loss of love and affection `1,00,000/-
For funeral expenses `25,000/-
Loss of estate `10,000/-
Loss of consortium `1,00,000/-
Total `19,87,192/-
2. By the appeal at hand, the insurer which has been asked to pay the
compensation, questions only the loss of dependency on the ground that it
has been wrongly calculated with addition of 50% future prospects of
increase in a case where the income of the deceased (which is 33 years old)
was calculated notionally on minimum wages.
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. The claimants had pleaded before the tribunal that the deceased was
working as a driver. However, no cogent proof as to his employment or
earnings could be mustered. Having regard to the fact that the deceased was
holding a driving licence (Ex. PW1/2) permitting him to drive goods
vehicles, the tribunal treated it as a case of skilled worker and, thus,
minimum wages of ` 8,112/- p.m. were assumed to be his income. The
tribunal proceeded to add 50% on account of future prospects. In absence of
any proper proof as to regular employment or progressive rise in income,
this cannot be accepted.
6. Thus, the loss of dependency is re-calculated as (` 8,112 x 3/4 x 12
x 16) ` 11,68,128/- rounded off to ` 11,70,000/-. It is noted that the award
under the head of loss of estate at Rs.10,000/- is inadequate. It is enhanced
to Rs.25,000/-. [see Rajesh & Ors. v. Rajbir Singh & Ors., (2013) 9 SCC 54
and Shashikala V. Gangalakshmamma (2015) 9 SCC 150]. Thus, the total
compensation in the case comes to (Rs.11,70,000/- + Rs.2,50,000/-)
Rs.14,20,000/-.
7. Following the consistent view taken by this Court, the rate of interest
is increased to 9% per annum 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.]
8. The tribunal had apportioned the award by specifying the amounts
falling to the share of different claimants. By order dated 05.02.2014, the
insurance company had been directed to deposit the entire awarded amount
with upto date interest within the period specified and out of the same 80%
was allowed to be released, the balance kept in fixed deposit receipt for a
period of 6 months to be renewed periodically. Since the compensation has
been reduced, it is directed that the amounts already received by the other
claimants under the interim order shall be treated as their respective shares,
the entire balance now payable to go only to the first claimant (wife). The
Registrar General shall calculate the amounts payable to the claimant under
the modified award and release the balance, if any, as above refunding the
excess, if any, to the insurance company with statutory deposit, if made. In
case the amount deposited is found to be deficient, the insurance company
shall make the requisite deposit with the tribunal within 30 days so that it
can immediately be released to the claimant.
9. The appeal is disposed of in above terms.
R.K. GAUBA
(JUDGE)
MAY 12, 2016
yg
