Delhi High Court
Deepika & Ors. vs Sehaj Ram & Ors. on 12 December, 2017
$~R-702
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 12th December, 2017
+ MAC APPEAL 1302/2012
DEEPIKA & ORS. ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. S.N. Parashar, Advocate
versus
SEHAJ RAM & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Sameer Nandwani, Adv. for
R-3
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. Golty Saluja, then aged 32 years, earning his livelihood from
business, suffered injuries in a motor vehicular accident that had
occurred on 24.02.2011, due to negligent driving of a motor vehicle
described as Tata tempo bearing registration no.HR-46A-8927,
admittedly insured against third party risk with the third respondent
(insurer) for the period in question and died in the consequence.
2. In the accident claim case (115/11), instituted on 24.03.2011, by
his wife and two other members of the family dependent on him, the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Tribunal) held inquiry and, by
judgment dated 20.10.2011, awarded compensation in the total sum of
Rs.29,31,900/-, directing the insurer to pay with interest at the rate of
7.5% p.a. The insurer has taken the plea of breach of terms and
conditions of the insurance policy on the ground that the first
respondent (driver) of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid
driving licence. This plea was accepted and thus the insurer was
granted recovery rights against the first and second respondent.
3. By the appeal at hand, the claimants seek enhanced
compensation. The prime grievances are that the element of future
prospects of increase in income was not granted and that the non-
pecuniary heads of damages and the rate of interest levied are low.
4. The tribunal's record would show that the claimant had
submitted income tax returns (ITRs) for three assessment years (AYs),
they being 2007-2008, 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 (Ex. PW1/8, PW1/7
and PW1/6 respectively). The last ITR for the assessment year 2009-
2010 indicated total income from business to be Rs.2,71,582/-. The
tribunal declined to grant any benefit of future prospects of increase in
income for the reason, the ITRs showed income which was fluctuating.
In view of the ruling of a constitution Bench of the Supreme Court
rendered on 31.10.2017 in SLP (C) 25590/2014, National Insurance
Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors., such reasons cannot hold
good. The benefit of future prospects to the extent of 40% will have to
be factored in.
5. The loss of dependency, on the multiplier of 16 (age of the
deceased being 32 years) and after deduction of one-third towards
personal and living expenses (claimants being three in number) is thus
re-computed as [Rs.2,71,582/- x 140/100 x 2/3 x 16] Rs.40,55,624.53,
rounded off to Rs.40,56,000/-.
6. The non-pecuniary damages awarded by the tribunal in the sum
of Rs.10,000/- each for loss of estate, loss of consortium and loss of
love and affection and Rs.5,000/- for funeral expenses need to be
revised. In their lieu, as per ruling in Pranay Sethi (supra), Rs.40,000/-
towards loss of consortium, Rs.15,000/- each for loss of estate and
funeral expenses are added.
7. Thus, the total compensation comes to [Rs.40,56,000/- +
Rs.40,000/- + Rs.15,000/- +Rs.15,000/-] Rs.41,26,000/- (Rupees Forty
one lakh and twenty six thousand only). The award is modified
accordingly.
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 insurer is directed to satisfy the enhanced award by requisite
deposit with the tribunal within 30 days. The entire amount now
payable including on account of increase in the rate of interest will fall
to the share of the first claimant (Deepika alone), it to be released to
her in the form of interest bearing fixed deposit receipt taken out from
a national bank for a period of ten years with right to draw periodic
interest.
10. The appeal is disposed of in above terms.
11. Nothing in this judgment, shall affect the recovery rights granted
to the insurer.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
DECEMBER 12, 2017/yg
