Delhi High Court
Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd vs Vimal Jain & Ors on 27 May, 2016
$~13 & 14
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 27.05.2016
+ MAC.APP. 533/2013 and CM No.3726/2014
SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD ..... Appellant
Through: Mr.Sameer Nandwani, Advocate
versus
VIMAL JAIN & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Navneet Goyal and Ms. Rupika
Singh, Advocate for R-1 & 2
+ MAC.APP. 1037/2014
VIMAL JAIN & ORS ..... Appellants
Mr. Navneet Goyal and Ms. Rupika Singh,
Advocate
versus
SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD ..... Respondent
Through: Mr.Sameer Nandwani, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT
R.K.GAUBA, J (ORAL):
1. On 18.06.2012, Ankit Jain, died as a result of the injuries suffered in a
motor vehicular accident involving negligent driving of a truck bearing
registration no.HR-38M-3285 (offending vehicle), concededly insured
against third party risk for the period in question.
2. By judgment dated 11.01.2013, on the accident claim case (suit
no.730/2012) arising out of a detailed accident report (DAR), instituted by
the first and second respondents (claimants), the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal (Tribunal) returned a finding that death had occurred due to
negligent driving of the offending vehicle. This finding has attained finality.
3. The tribunal, on the basis of inquiry held, awarded compensation in
the sum of Rs.9,76,258/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a., the said
amount being inclusive of Rs.25,000/- towards loss of love and affection,
Rs.10,000/- each towards funeral charges and loss to estate and
Rs.9,31,258/- towards loss of dependency.
4. The insurer of the offending vehicle (appellant in MACA
No.533/2013) questions the award on account of loss of dependency taking
exception to the factor of future prospects of increase in income. The
claimants (appellants in MACA 1037/2014), on the other hand, are
aggrieved by the inadequacy of non-pecuniary damages and rate of interest.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. The deceased was 23 years old, a bachelor. The parents who filed the
claim petition were unable to prove by any cogent evidence the nature of
avocation or earnings. The tribunal, thus, assumed the income on the basis
of minimum wages of a matriculate at Rs.8,528/-. In these circumstances,
the element of future prospects of increase has to be kept out. The tribunal
deducted one-half towards personal and living expenses and applied the
multiplier of 14 having regard to the age of the claimant / mother , both
correctly so. In these circumstances, the dependency loss is re-calculated as
(Rs.8528/2 x 12 x 14) Rs.7,16,352/-, rounded off to Rs.7,17,000/-.
8. Following the view taken in Rajesh & Ors. v. Rajbir Singh & Ors.,
(2013) 9 SCC 54 and Shashikala V. Gangalakshmamma (2015) 9 SCC 150,
Rs.1 Lakh is awarded towards loss of love and affection and Rs.25,000/-
each is awarded towards loss of estate and funeral expenses. Thus, total
compensation is re-calculated as (Rs.7,17,000/- + Rs.1,50,000/-)
Rs.8,67,000/-.
9. 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.].
10. The award is modified accordingly.
11. By order dated 31.05.2013 in MACA 533/2013, the insurance
company had been directed to deposit the entire awarded amount with upto
date interest within the period specified, from which 70% was allowed to be
released, the balance kept in fixed deposit receipts. Registrar General shall
now calculate the amount payable to the claimants in terms of the modified
award and release the balance from the amount retained in deposit refunding
excess, if any, to the insurer with statutory deposit, if made. Conversely, if
any amount payable as compensation remains outstanding, the insurer will
be obliged to deposit the same with the tribunal within 30 days of this
judgment, making it available to be released to the claimants.
12. The appeal and the pending application are disposed of in above
terms.
(R.K. GAUBA)
JUDGE
MAY 27, 2016
yg
