Delhi High Court
The Oriental Insurance Co Ltd vs Rani Devi & Ors on 13 May, 2016
$~16
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 13.05.2016
+ MAC.APP. 492/2014
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. J.P.N. Shahi, Advocate
versus
RANI DEVI & ORS ..... Respondents
Through
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT
R.K.GAUBA, J (ORAL):
1. Ranjeet Mehta, aged 27 years, died as a result of the injuries suffered
in a motor vehicular accident that occurred on 20.01.2007 involving
negligent driving of a truck bearing registration no.HR-38K-6304 (offending
vehicle) admittedly insured against third party risk for the period in question
with the appellant insurance company (insurer). The dependent family
members of Ranjeet Mehta, first to fifth respondent (claimants), instituted an
accident claim case (suit no.571/11) on 11.04.2007 seeking compensation
under Sections 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (M.V. Act). In
the said case, besides the insurer, driver and owner of the offending vehicle
were also impleaded as parties.
2. The tribunal, upon inquiry, by judgment dated 18.02.2014, upheld the
case of the claimants of death having occurred due to negligence on the part
of the driver of the offending vehicle and awarded compensation in the sum
of Rs.9,95,104/- with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of filing of
the petition till realization. The said amount includes Rs.7,60,104/- towards
loss of dependency besides Rs.1 Lakh each towards loss of love and
affection and loss of consortium, Rs.25,000/- towered funeral expenses and
Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate. For calculating the loss of dependency,
in absence of clear proof, the tribunal assumed Rs.3312/- p.m. as the income
on the basis of minimum wages payable to a matriculate (at the relevant
point of time), applied the multiplier of 17 (rightly so) with deduction of
1/4th towards personal and living expenses (correctly so done) but after
adding 50% towards future prospects.
3. By the appeal at hand, the insurer which has been burdened with the
liability to pay raises only one issue, namely, that since the income was
notionally assessed and there was no evidence of regular income with
progressive rise, the element of future prospects could not have been added.
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. In the above facts and circumstances of the case, the contention of the
insurer against future prospects must be accepted. Thus, the dependency
loss is recalculated as (3312 x 3/4 x 12 x 17) ₹ 5,06,736/-, rounded off
to ₹ 5,07,000/-.
7. It is noted that the award of ₹ 10,000/- towards loss to estate is
inadequate. Having regard to the view taken in Rajesh & Ors. v. Rajbir
Singh & Ors., (2013) 9 SCC 54 and Shashikala V. Gangalakshmamma
(2015) 9 SCC 150, the said amount is increased to Rs.25,000/-. Thus, the
total compensation in the case comes to (Rs.5,07,000 + Rs.2,50,000)
Rs.7,57,000/-. The award is modified accordingly. It shall carry interest as
levied by the tribunal.
8. By order dated 26.05.2014, the insurance company had been directed
to deposit the entire awarded amount with upto date interest, from which
60% was allowed to be released, the balance kept in fixed deposit receipt
with UCO Bank, Delhi High Court Branch, New Delhi. The Registrar
General shall calculate the amount payable to the claimants under the
modified award and release the balance from the amounts deposited
refunding excess with statutory deposits, if made, to the insurer.
9. The appeal is disposed of in above terms.
R.K. GAUBA
(JUDGE)
May 13, 2016
yg
