Delhi High Court
Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd vs Asha Rani & Ors on 27 May, 2016
$~1
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 27.05.2016
+ MAC.APP. 534/2014 & CM No. 10274/2014
SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Sameer Nandwani, Advocate
versus
ASHA RANI & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT
R.K.GAUBA, J (ORAL):
1. The insurance company which has been burdened with the liability to
pay the compensation awarded in favour of the first and second respondents
(claimants), by judgment dated 22.03.2014 of the motor accident claims
tribunal (tribunal) in the accident claim case (Suit No. 05/2014) on account
of death of Mohan Lal in a motor vehicular accident on 26.07.2013
involving negligent driving of motor vehicle No. DL 1LG 5978 (the
offending vehicle), concededly insured with it against third party risk, is in
appeal questioning the calculation of loss of dependency by inclusion of the
element of future prospects of increase to the extent of 30%.
2. Inspite of notice and having earlier appeared through counsel, the
claimants have not been appearing to assist. Arguments of appellant have
been heard. Record perused.
3. The deceased was 42 years old. The tribunal's record and judgment
show no proper proof of his avocation or earnings was mustered. Having
regard to the educational and vocational training, the tribunal assumed his
income notionally at ` 8814/- but added the element of 30% to the future
expense.
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 above view, the element of future prospects cannot be added. The
dependency loss is recomputed on the multiplier of 14 as (8814 x 2 ÷ 3 x 12
x 14) ` 9,87,168/- rounded off to ` 9,88,000/-. Since the accident had
occurred on 26.07.2013, this Court notes that the non-pecuniary damages
awarded by the tribunal are inadequate. Following the view taken by this
Court in Shriram General insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Usha & Ors. MAC Appeal
No. 160/2015 decided on 05.05.2016, non-pecuniary damages under the
heads of loss of love & affection and loss of consortium are granted in the
sum of ` 1,50,000/- each besides ` 50,000/- each towards loss of estate and
funeral expenses. Putting together all the heads of damages (pecuniary and
non-pecuniary), the total compensation in the case is computed as (9,88,000
+ 4, 00,000) ` 13,88,000/-.
7. It is also noted that the tribunal awarded interest only at 7.5 % per
annum which is on the lower side. 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 award is modified accordingly.
9. By order dated 24th July, 2014, the insurance company had been
directed to deposit the entire awarded amount within the period specified
from which 70% was allowed to be released, the balance kept in fixed
deposit receipt with UCO Bank, Delhi High Court.
10. The Registrar General is directed to calculate the share payable to the
claimants and release the same with proportionate interest in their favour in
terms of the aforementioned direction. If there is any short fall, the same
shall be deposited by the insurance company with the Registrar General
within 30 days of today. On the other hand, if excess has been deposited or
released, the same shall be refunded.
11. The statutory amount, if paid, shall also be refunded.
12. The appeal and the pending application are disposed of in above
terms.
(R.K. GAUBA)
JUDGE
MAY 27, 2016
nk
