Delhi High Court
Nidhi Arora & Ors vs Reliance General Insurance Co. ... on 6 November, 2017
$~R-418
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 6th November, 2017
+ MAC.APP. 1035/2011
NIDHI ARORA & ORS ..... Appellants
Through: None.
versus
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
...... Respondents
Through: Mr. Pankaj Seth, Adv.
insurance company.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. Ashwani Arora, aged 38 years, engaged in a private business,
suffered injuries in a motor vehicular accident that occurred on
10.03.2011 due to negligent driving of Truck bearing registration no.
HR 38 H 6915 and died in the consequence, the said vehicle being
driven by the third respondent (driver), it concededly being registered
in the name of second respondent (registered owner) and insured
against third party risk with the first respondent (insurer). Accident
claim case (suit no. 171/11) was filed on 27.04.2011 by the wife, two
children and parents of the deceased, first three now being the
appellants and the parents being the fourth and fifth respondents in
appeal (collectively, the claimants). The tribunal held inquiry and, by
judgment dated 12.09.2011, held that the accident had occurred due to
negligent driving of the truck. It awarded compensation in the total
sum of Rs. 21,42,400/-, directing the insurer to pay the said amount, it
inclusive of Rs. 20,63,497.50 towards loss of dependency besides Rs.
10,000/- each on account of loss of consortium and loss to estate,
Rs.5,000/- as funeral expenses and Rs. 53,900/- towards medical
expenses.
2. The claimants felt aggrieved with the amount of compensation
granted and came up with the present appeal seeking enhancement.
The appeal was admitted and directed to be put in the category of
'regulars' to come up in due course as per order dated 17.03.2015.
When it is taken up for hearing there is no appearance on behalf of the
claimants/appellants. The matter has been considered with the
assistance of the learned counsel for the insurer.
3. It is noted that the claimants had proved before the tribunal, by
formal evidence that the deceased was a graduate in Mechanical
Engineering from University of Gulbarga (Ex.PW-1/19) and was
engaged in earning his livelihood by running his own business in the
name and style of M/s Ashirwad Appliances, at least two trademarks
being registered in his name. His income was proved as Rs.
1,86,600/- per annum on the basis of income-tax return (ITR) for the
year 2010-11 which had been submitted before the Income-Tax
Department prior to the death. The tribunal noted the income-tax
liability of Rs. 3,178/- and, thus, concluded the net income as Rs.
1,83,422/- per annum. It applied the multiplier of 15, made deduction
of 1/4th towards personal and living expenses and on such basis
calculated the loss of dependency.
4. The prime grievances raised in the appeal are that the tribunal
has failed to take into account the element of future prospects of
increase and that the multiplier of 18 should have been adopted.
5. The first above-mentioned contention must be accepted in view
of the ruling of the 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. The present case being one that of a
self-employed person, such factor is to be granted at 40%. The
contention about the multiplier cannot be accepted as the same is in
accord with the dispensation in Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi
Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121, which has been
affirmed in Pranay Sethi (supra). The loss of dependency is thus,
recalculated as (1,83,422 x 140 ÷100 x 3 ÷4 x 15) Rs. 28,88,896.5
rounded off to Rs. 28,88,897/-.
6. Going by the ruling in Pranay Sethi (supra), the non-pecuniary
damages also need to be suitably revised. Thus, an amount of Rs.
40,000/- is added towards loss of consortium and the amounts of Rs.
15,000/- each are included on account of loss of estate and funeral
expenses. Putting together all heads of damages including the medical
expenses of Rs. 53,900/-, the total compensation comes to (28,88,897
+ 40,000 + 15,000 + 15,000 + 53,900) Rs. 30,12,797/-, rounded off to
Rs. 30,13,000/- (Rupees Thirty Lacs and Thirteen Thousand Only).
7. Following the consistent view taken by this Court, the rate of
interest is increased to 9% 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.]
8. Having regard to the shares apportioned by the tribunal in
favour of different claimants, it is directed that the entire enhanced
portion of the award along with effect of increase in interest, shall fall
to the share of first claimant Nidhi Arora (widow), it to be released to
her in the form of interest bearing fixed deposit to be taken out from a
nationalized bank in her name for a period of seven years along with
right to draw periodic interest.
9. The insurer shall be obliged to pay the requisite amount by
appropriate deposit with the tribunal within thirty days, making it
available to be released.
10. The appeal is disposed of in above terms.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
NOVEMBER 06, 2017
nk
