Delhi High Court
Reliance General Insurance Co Ltd vs Sugas & Ors on 30 August, 2017
$~4
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 30th August, 2017
+ MAC.APP. 1013/2015 and CM APPL.32167/2015
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Arun Yadav, Advocate
versus
SUGAS & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Pankaj Kumari proxy counsel for
Mr. S.N. Parashar, Advocate for R-1
to R-5.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. On 27.03.2013 at about 1:15 p.m., Imran, a bachelor, 18 years
old, met with a motor vehicular accident involving negligent driving
of motorcycle bearing registration No.DL-5SS-8779, admittedly
insured against third party risk with the appellant insurance company
(insurer) for the period in question, and died in the consequence. His
mother and siblings, they being first to fifth respondents (collectively,
the claimants), brought before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
(the tribunal) accident claim case (MACT No.102/2013) on
11.04.2013 seeking compensation. The tribunal, by judgment dated
13.10.2015, awarded compensation in the total sum of Rs.17,01,864/-
calling upon the appellant (insurer) to pay with interest @ nine per
cent (9%) per annum.
2. The insurer, by the appeal at hand, points out that the tribunal
fell into error by adding the element of future prospects of increase in
the income even though it had been assessed on the basis of minimum
wages, and that the deduction on account of personal and living
expenses was made only to the extent of one-third, even though the
claim was in relation to the death of a bachelor son and further that the
multiplier of 18 according to the age of the deceased has been wrongly
adopted.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. Since there was no clear proof of nature of avocation of the
deceased or when the income of the deceased having assessed with the
help of minimum wages, there was no occasion for any future
prospects to be added. It is well settled that in case of a bachelor fifty
per cent (50%) is to be deducted towards personal and living expenses.
6. 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"."
7. Since the age of the mother, as per the ration card (copy at page
161 of the tribunal's record) on the relevant date was 42 years (born in
1971), the multiplier of 14 would apply. Thus, the award towards the
loss of dependency with the help of minimum wages (7254/-) is re-
computed as (7254/- ÷ 2 x 12 x 14) Rs.6,09,336/- rounded off to
Rs.6,10,000/-.
8. The non-pecuniary heads as awarded by the tribunal are
inadequate. Having regard to the fact that the accident had occurred in
March, 2013, following the dispensation 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. Thus, the total compensation
payable in the case comes to (6,10,000/- + 1,50,000/- + 50,000/- +
50,000/- ) Rs.8,60,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs Sixty Thousand Only).
9. The award is modified accordingly. Needless to add, it shall
carry interest as levied by the tribunal.
10. By order dated 07.01.2016, the insurance company had been
directed to deposit entire awarded amount with the Registrar General
of this court, out of which fifty percent (50%) was allowed to be
released to the claimants and the balance was ordered to be kept in
interest bearing fixed deposit receipt with the UCO Bank, Delhi High
Court, New Delhi.
11. The registry is directed to recalculate the amount payable as per
modification ordered above, releasing the balance, if any, in favour of
the claimants in terms of the impugned award and refunding the
excess, with corresponding interest, to the appellant insurance
company.
12. The statutory amount shall also be refunded to the appellant
insurance company.
13. The appeal along with accompanying application stands
disposed of in above terms.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
AUGUST 30, 2017
vk
