Delhi High Court
United India Insurance Co Ltd vs Jasvinder Kaur & Ors on 29 August, 2017
$~2
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 29th August, 2017
+ MAC.APP. 577/2014 and CM APPL.10574/2014
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Priyadarsi Acharya, Advocate
versus
JASVINDER KAUR & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. P.K. Saxena, Advocate for R-1 &
R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. On 24.04.2011 Ms. Jaspreet Kaur, a bachelor, 20 years old, died
in a motor vehicular accident that occurred due to negligent driving of
water tanker bearing registration No.DL-1GA-9830, admittedly
insured with the appellant insurance company (insurer) against third
party risk for the period in question. Her parents (first and second
respondents), collectively, the claimants, brought accident claim case
(MACP No.360/2011) instituted on 01.09.2011 seeking compensation.
2. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Tribunal), by judgment
dated 05.04.2014, awarded compensation in the total sum of
Rs.14,02,812/-, calculating it thus:-
Sl.No. Head Amount in (Rs.)
1. Loss of dependency (Rs.70,434/- x 18) 12,67,812/-
2. Loss of love and affection 1,00,000/-
3. For Funeral expenses 25,000/-
4. Loss of estate 10,000/-
Total 14,02,812/-
3. The insurance company was called upon to pay with interest @
seven and half per cent (7.5%) per annum.
4. The insurer questions the computation on the ground loss of
dependency worked out is erroneous as income of the deceased was
assumed on the basis of minimum wages (7826/-) to which element of
future prospects was added without justification and that the multiplier
of 18 was adopted ignoring the fact that the claim was by the parents
in the case of death of a bachelor.
5. Both the contentions of the insurance company must be
accepted.
6. It is noted that the claimant mother (the first respondent) was 38
years old as on 01.01.2008, as per voter identity card, copy of which is
available at page 177 of the tribunal's record. This would mean, she
was 44 years old on the date of accident occurred.
7. On the issue of choice of the multiplier in the case of death of a
bachelor, this Court in case titled Reliance General Insurance
Company Limited vs. Gomti & Ors., MAC APP.467/2016, decided on
24th August, 2017, has observed as under:-
"6. The question as to the choice of multiplier in cases of
deaths of bachelors, had come up before this Court in MAC
appeal No. 431/2016 National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Mohd.
Siddique & Ors. decided on 18th July, 2017, where it was urged
on behalf of the insurance company that the law laid down by
the Supreme Court in cases of General Manager, Kerala State
Road Transport Corporation vs. Susamma Thomas & Ors.,
(1994) 2 SCC 176 and U.P. State Road Transport Corporation
and Ors. vs. Trilok Chandra and Ors., (1996) 4 SCC 362
continues to prevail as the binding precedent. This Court, after
examining the issue in light of the decisions in aforementioned
cases and in the cases of Reshma Kumari vs. Madan Mohan
(2013) 9 SCC 65 and noting the dicta in Central Board of
Dawoodi Bohra Community & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra &
Anr., (2005) 2 SCC 67; Safiya Bee v. Mohd. Vajahath Hussain
@ Fasi, (2011) 2 SCC 94 and Union of India & Ors. v. S.K.
Kapoor, (2011) 4 SCC 589, held as under:-
"16. Since the decision in Trilok Chandra and Ors.,
(supra) by a bench of three Hon'ble Judges is prior in time
in relation to the decisions in Reshma Kumari (supra) and
Munna Lal Jain (supra), it is the statement of law on
choice of multiplier in the former which is to be taken as
the binding precedent. Thus, this court will follow the
dictum in the said judgment and adopt the multiplier
according to the age of the deceased or that of the
claimants, whichever is higher"."
8. Therefore, the multiplier has to be chosen on the basis of age of
the mother, since it is higher, the appropriate multiplier in the present
case being 14.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. Since there was no formal proof of engagement in gainful
employment of the deceased, the income having been assumed on the
basis of minimum wages, the element of future prospects was uncalled
for. Thus, after deduction of fifty per cent (50%) towards personal and
living expenses, applying the multiplier of 14, the loss of dependency
is calculated as (7826/- ÷ 2 x 12 x 14) Rs.6,57,384/- rounded off to
Rs.6,58,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs and Fifty Eight Thousand Only).
12. The non-pecuniary heads as awarded by the tribunal are
inadequate. Following the view taken in MAC.APP.No.160/2015
Shriram General Insurance Co Ltd v. Usha decided by this court on
05.05.2016, non-pecuniary damages in the sum of Rs.1,50,000/-
towards loss of love & affection and Rs.50,000/- each towards loss of
estate and funeral expense are added. Hence, the total compensation
payable in the case comes to (6,58,000/- + 1,50,000/- + 50,000/- +
50,000/- ) Rs.9,08,000/- (Rupees Nine Lakhs Eight Thousand Only).
13. The award is modified accordingly.
14. 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 nine per
cent (9%) per annum from the date of filing of the petition till
realization.
15. By order dated 16.07.2014, the insurance company had been
directed to deposit Rs.10 lakhs with the Registrar General of this court
as pre-condition to the stay against execution, the said amount having
been allowed to be released.
16. The insurance company shall deposit the balance of its liability
under the modified award with the tribunal within thirty (30) days.
17. The statutory amount shall be refunded to the appellant
insurance company after proof is shown of the award having been
satisfied.
18. The appeal along with accompanying application stands
disposed of in above terms.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
AUGUST 29, 2017
vk
