Delhi High Court
National Insurance Company Ltd. vs Raj Kumar & Ors. on 27 July, 2017
$~17
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 27th July, 2017
+ MAC APPEAL No. 148/2015
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Manoj R. Sinha, Adv.
versus
RAJ KUMAR & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. The first respondent, then aged 40 years, suffered injuries and
permanent disability, assessed to be functional disability to the extent
of 55%, as a result of motor vehicular accident that occurred on
11.03.2009 due to rash driving of motor vehicle no. DL 3C AD 1661,
which was admittedly insured against third party risk with the
appellant insurance company (insurer). He filed accident claim case
(suit no. 90/2014) on 20.03.2010 seeking compensation. The tribunal,
after inquiry, by judgment dated 14.11.2014, awarded compensation in
the total sum of Rs. 8,82,445/- with interest @ 9% per annum in his
favour fastening the liability on the appellant. The said amount of
compensation included Rs. 5,84,199/- calculated as compensation
payable on account of permanent disability, it being the consequent
loss of future income, other components of the compensation being for
loss of amenities of life, loss of wages, pain & suffering,
disfigurement, medicines & medical treatment, conveyance and
special diet.
2. The insurer is in appeal questioning the computation of loss of
future income on account of permanent disability pointing out that
there was no proof of actual income or engagement in a particular
trade adduced and that the income had to be assumed on the basis of
minimum wages Rs. 3,934/- payable for unskilled workers. The
insurer takes exception to the addition of 50% towards future
prospects of increase over and above the minimum wages.
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. In the given fact-situation where there was no proof of actual
employment or earnings, the element of future prospects could not
have been added. In these circumstances, the loss of future income is
recomputed on the basis of multiplier of 15 as (3934 x 55÷ 100 x 12 x
15) Rs. 3,89,466/-. This would mean the award must be reduced by
Rs. (5,84,199 - 3,89,466) Rs. 1,94,733/-.
6. Consequently, the award is modified as (8,82,445-194733) Rs.
6,87,712/- rounded off to Rs. 6,88,000/-. Needless to add, it shall
carry interest as levied by the tribunal.
7. By order dated 13.02.2015, the insurer had been directed to
deposit 75% of the awarded amount with proportionate interest which
was allowed to be released to the claimant. The insurance company
shall pay the balance, if any, by requisite deposit with the tribunal
within 30 days.
8. The statutory amount shall be refunded.
9. Dasti.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
JULY27, 2017/nk
