Delhi High Court
Shriram General Insurance Co Ltd vs Reshma & Ors on 16 May, 2016
$~15
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 16th May, 2016
+ MAC.APP. 167/2014
SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. P. Acharya, Advocate
versus
RESHMA & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. R.K. Bachchan, Adv. for R-3 & 4
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT
R.K.GAUBA, J (ORAL):
1. Yaseen Dula Khan @ Yaseen, aged 37 years, died in a motor
vehicular accident that had occurred on 13.08.2010 involving negligent
driving of a motor vehicle bearing registration no.UP17B-3286 (offending
vehicle) concededly insured against third party risk with the appellant
insurance company (insurer) for the period in question. His widow and
child instituted accident claim case (MAC petition no.243/2010 on
18.08.2010) seeking compensation under Sections 166 and 140 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 (M.V. Act), impleading amongst others, the parents of
the deceased, in addition to the insurer, driver and owner of the offending
vehicle as parties. The tribunal upheld the case about negligent driving of
the offending vehicle having led to the death and, by judgment dated
06.12.2013, awarded compensation in the sum of Rs.10,76,235/- with
interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of the petition till
realization, directing the insurer to pay.
2. By the appeal at hand, the insurer questions the calculation of loss of
dependency on the ground that the element of future prospects to the extent
of 30% was wrongly added over and above the income of the deceased
notionally assessed at Rs.5278/- p.m., it being the minimum wages.
3. Per contra, the counsel for the claimants points out that the awards of
Rs.50,000/- each towards loss of love and affection and loss of consortium
and interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. are inadequate.
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 no clear evidence was mustered showing regular employment
or progressive rise in income, the loss of dependency is recomputed without
the element of future prospects on multiplier of 15, after deduction of 1/4 th
towards personal and living expenses as (5278 x 3 /4 x 12 x 15)
Rs.7,12,530/-, rounded off to Rs.7,13,000/-.
7. Following the view taken in Rajesh & Ors. v. Rajbir Singh & Ors.,
(2013) 9 SCC 54 and Shashikala V. Gangalakshmamma (2015) 9 SCC 150,
awards under the heads of loss of love and affection and loss of consortium
are increased to Rs.1 Lakh each. Adding the award of Rs.25,000/- each
towards loss of estate and funeral expenses, the total compensation in the
case comes to ( ₹ 7,13,000/- + ₹2,50,000/-) ₹ 9,63,000/-.
8. 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.
9. The award is modified accordingly.
10. By order dated 19.02.2014, the insurance company had been directed
to deposit the entire awarded amount with upto date interest with the
Registrar General within the period specified and out of such deposit ninety
percent (90%) 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
one year with provision for periodical renewal.
11. The Registrar General shall now calculate the balance 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 deposit to the insurer. Conversely, if more amount is required
to be paid, the insurer shall be directed to deposit the same with the tribunal
within 30 days of this judgment whereupon it shall be released with interest
accordingly.
12. The appeal is disposed of in above terms.
R.K. GAUBA
(JUDGE)
MAY 16, 2016
yg
