Icici Lombard General Insurance ... vs Chanchal & Ors
2017 Latest Caselaw 3648 Del

$~2
*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                                          Decided on: 26th July, 2017
+      MAC APPEAL No. 357/2017

       ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD
                                              ..... Appellant
                     Through: Mr.A.K. Soni, Advocate.

                          versus

       CHANCHAL & ORS                             ..... Respondents
                   Through:           Mr. Mohit Ahuja, Advocate for
                                      R-1 to R-6.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA

                      JUDGMENT (ORAL)

1. Praveen Kumar, aged 45 years, engaged in business, died as a result of injuries suffered in a motor vehicular accident that occurred on 26.08.2015, statedly due to rash driving of car bearing registration no. DL 4CAF 6200, admittedly insured against third party risk with the appellant insurance company for the period in question. On the accident claim case (suit no. 4215/2016), submitted by the first to sixth respondents (collectively, the claimants), in the wake of submission of detailed accident report (DAR) on 09.11.2015 by the local police pursuant to the investigation into corresponding FIR No. 736/2015 of police station Kalkaji, the tribunal held inquiry and, by judgment dated 22.02.2017, awarded compensation in the total sum of

Rs. 41,91,080/- with interest @ 9% per annum fastening the liability on the appellant (insurer).

2. The insurer is in appeal questioning the computation pressing it only on the ground that the element of future prospects of increase to the extent of 30% was wrongly factored in, there being no evidence supporting such claim, the deceased being in business for earning his livelihood.

3. The claimants have appeared through counsel and the learned counsel submitted since only a short issue arises he does not want to file any reply and is ready to argue. With the consent of parties the matter has been taken up for hearing and disposal.

4. The perusal of the tribunal's record indicates that the claimants led evidence by proving the income tax return (ITR) for assessment year 2013-2014 and 2014-2015. While the ITR for AY 2013-2014 indicated the business income of Rs. 2,51,500/-, the income tax for the subsequent year AY 2014-2015 indicated the income was Rs. 2,85,000/-.

5. In these circumstances, there was clear and irrefutable evidence indicating progressive rise in income. In this view, following the ruling of this Court in MAC Appeal No. 889/2014 titled New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Sanjeev Jain & Ors. decided on 23.05.2016 which has been consistently followed by later judgments including judgment in MAC Appeal No. 343/2016 titled Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Shalu Sharma & Ors., the contention urged is found devoid of substance.

6. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. The amount deposited by the appellant in terms of order dated 12.04.2017, shall be released to the claimants.

7. The statutory deposit shall be refunded.

R.K.GAUBA, J.

JULY 26, 2017 nk