Delhi High Court
Sayna & Ors vs Dinesh Kumar & Ors on 5 July, 2017
$~31
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 5th July, 2017
+ MAC.APP. 535/2017 and CM 23169/2017
SAYNA & ORS ..... Appellants
Through: Mr. S.N. Parashar, Advocate
versus
DINESH KUMAR & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Pankaj proxy counsel for Ms.
Shantha Devi Raman, Advocate for R-3
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. The appellants had claimed compensation in the wake of
detailed accident report (DAR) registered (D-93/16) in the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal (Tribunal) on 30.11.2015 on account of
death of Rafique in a motor vehicular accident that occurred on
11.10.2015 in the area of police station Delhi Cantt, it statedly
involving negligent driving of motor vehicle no.DL-3CAG-5269 by
the first respondent. It appears that the vehicle was owned by the
second respondent and insured against third party risk at the relevant
period with the third respondent.
2. The tribunal, after issuance of notice, held inquiry and on that
basis rendered judgment dated 27.10.2016 awarding compensation in
the total sum of Rs.20,34,243/- with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. to
be paid with effect from 30.11.2015, date of filing of the DAR till
realization, the liability having been fastened against the insurer.
3. The appellants have come up before this court by the appeal at
hand raising only one grievance, it being that in calculation of loss of
dependency, the element of future prospects was not factored in.
4. It is noted that in the evidence led before the tribunal, it was
brought out that the deceased was 34 years old person, self-employed
having own business of garments. But this was not substantiated by
any concrete evidence. The tribunal noted that the deceased had
studied upto 8th standard and in absence of any formal proof assumed
his income on the basis of minimum wages of non-matriculates at
Rs.10140/- p.m. It did not add the element of future prospects.
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. There is no clear evidence showing element of future prospects
of increase in income in the case at hand.
8. In above view, the appeal is found devoid of substance and is
dismissed. The pending application also stands dismissed.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
JULY 05, 2017
yg
