Delhi High Court
Prema And Anr. vs Yogender Singh @ Rahul & Ors. on 11 December, 2017
$~R-681 & 682
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 11th December, 2017
+ MAC APPEAL 1251/2012
PREMA AND ANR. ..... Appellants
Through: Mr. O.P. Mannie, Advocate
versus
YOGENDER SINGH @ RAHUL & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. A.K. Soni, Advocate for
Mr.Sameer Nandwani, Adv. for
R3/Sriram General Insurance
Co. Ltd.
+ MAC APPEAL 340/2013
SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. A.K. Soni, Advocate for
Mr.Sameer Nandwani, Adv.
versus
PREMA SINGH & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. O.P. Mannie, Adv. for
Respondents No.1 & 2
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. On 16th May, 2011, Anjali, a bachelor aged 24 years old,
daughter of claimants (Appellants in MAC APP. No.1251/2012 and
Respondents No.1 and 2 in MAC APP. No.340/2013), died as a result
of injuries suffered, in a motor vehicular accident due to negligent
driving of mini bus bearing registration No. DL1V-A-6685,
admittedly insured against third party risk with Shriram General
Insurance Company Limited (Insurer) for the period in question. By
judgment dated 17th July, 2012, the Tribunal decided the Accident
Claim Case (Suit No.73/2011) of the said claimants, directing
payment of compensation in the sum of Rs.7,99,400/- by the Insurer
with interest @ 7.5% per annum, calculating it thus:
Loss of dependency Rs.7,64,400.00
On account of love and affection Rs.25,000.00
Funeral expenses Rs.10,000.00
Total Rs.7,99,400.00
2. The claimants by their appeal (MAC APP. No.1251/2012) have
submitted grievance that the compensation is inadequate, pointing out
mainly that the Tribunal had accepted the offer of appointment at
wages which were below the minimum wages payable during the
relevant period as the notional income ignoring the minimum wages
which should have been the appropriate benchmark. The claimants
also submit that the Tribunal fell into error by factoring in the element
of future prospects of increase in income to the extent of only 30%
and applying the multiplier of 14 as per the age of the claimants, the
non-pecuniary damages and the rate of interest levied also being
inadequate.
3. On the other hand, the insurer by its appeal (MAC APP.
No.340/2013) has primarily taken exception to the inclusion of future
prospects of increase in income.
4. Given the nature of evidence, it is clear that the claimants were
unable to strictly prove the gainful employment of the deceased. In
these circumstances, the Tribunal had no option but to go by minimum
wages. Since the victim was pursuing the course of study leading to a
graduation degree, minimum wages of a matriculate (i.e. Rs.7,826/-
per month) should have been adopted as the benchmark. It was
inappropriate to assess the income notionally on the basis of the
appointment offered by a private entity.
5. Following the ruling of a Constitutional Bench of the Supreme
Court rendered on 31.10.2017 in SLP (C) 25590/2014, National
Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors., future prospects
to the extent of 40% have to be added and in view of the decision in
Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6
SCC 121, which has been affirmed in Pranay Sethi (supra), the
multiplier of 18 would apply, in view of the age of the deceased.
6. Thus, the loss of dependency is re-calculated as [7826 x
140/100 x 1/2 x 12 x 18] Rs.11,83,291.20/- rounded off to
Rs.11,84,000/-.
7. The non-pecuniary damages also have to be brought in sync
with the dispensation in Pranay Sethi (supra). Thus, in lieu of the
amount included by the tribunal, Rs.15,000/- each towards loss of
estate and funeral expenses are added, raising the compensation to
[Rs.11,84,000/- + Rs.15,000/- + Rs.15,000/-] Rs.12,14,000/- (Rupees
Twelve Lakh Fourteen Thousand only).
8. Following the consistent view taken by this Court, the rate of
interest is increased to 9% (nine percent) 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.]
9. The apportionment of the award, as directed by the Tribunal,
shall be followed.
10. The award is modified accordingly.
11. By order dated 16th April, 2013 in MAC APP. No.340/2013, the
insurance company was directed to deposit the entire awarded amount
with up-to-date interest accrued thereon with the Registrar General of
this Court. Out of the said deposit, 60% of the award was permitted to
be released to the claimants. Since the award has been increased, the
amount lying in deposit shall be released to the claimants in terms of
the impugned judgment with accrued interest.
12. The insurance company shall be obliged to deposit the balance
of its liability, with the tribunal within 30 days, in terms of the
modified award, making it available to be released to the claimants.
13. The statutory amount deposited by the insurer will be refunded
only after proof is shown of the award having been satisfied.
14. Both the appeals are disposed of in above terms.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
DECEMBER 11, 2017
pk
