Delhi High Court
National Insurance Company Ltd vs Madina & Ors. on 24 July, 2017
$~10
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 24th July, 2017
+ MAC.APP. 367/2016 and CM APPL.15424/2016 (stay)
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD...... Appellant
Through: Mr. Arihant Jain, Advocate
Versus
MADINA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. S.N. Parashar, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. Mohd. Bashir, aged 20 years, died in a motor vehicular accident
that occurred on 30.08.2012 on account of negligent driving of truck
bearing registration no.HR-38J-5216, which was admittedly insured
against third party risk with the appellant insurance company. On the
claim petition of his mother, wife and brother (first to third
respondents), the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the tribunal), by
judgment dated 02.02.2016, awarded compensation in the total sum of
Rs.18,41,320/- with interest @ 9% per annum. The appellant
(insurance company) questions the said computation by the appeal at
hand.
2. Admittedly, no proof of income of the deceased was adduced.
He was earning his livelihood as a rickshaw-puller. The tribunal
computed loss of dependency on the basis of minimum wages of an
unskilled worker at Rs.7020/-. It, however, added 50% towards future
prospects and applied the multiplier of 18 after deduction of one-third
towards personal and living expenses to calculate the loss of
dependency.
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. It is correctly contended by the insurance company that future
prospects could not have been factored in. In the given facts and
circumstances, the loss of dependency is thus re-computed as (7020/-
x 2/3 x 12 x 18) 10,10,880/-, rounded off to Rs.10,11,000/-.
6. It is noted that the non-pecuniary damages awarded by the
tribunal are not in accord with the dispensation given by this court.
7. 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 and having regard to date of accident (30.08.2012), the
awards under the heads of non-pecuniary damages in the sum of
Rs.1,50,000/- each towards loss of love & affection and towards loss
of consortium and Rs.50,000/- each towards loss of estate and funeral
expense are added. Thus, the total compensation comes to
(10,11,000/- + Rs.1,50,000/- + 1,50,000/- + Rs.50,000/-+Rs.50,000/-)
Rs. 14,11,000/-.
8. The award is modified accordingly. Needless to add, it shall
carry interest as levied by the tribunal.
9. By order dated 29.04.2016, the insurance company had been
directed to deposit the entire awarded amount with interest, out of
which 40% was allowed to be released, balance kept in fixed deposit
account. The tribunal shall now calculate the balance amount payable
in terms of the modified award and release the same to the respective
claimants, refunding the excess in deposit to the insurance company.
10. The pending application also stands disposed of.
11. The statutory amount shall be refunded to the insurance
company.
12. Dasti to the parties.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
JULY 24, 2017
vk
