Delhi High Court
Reliance General Insurance ... vs Asma & Ors. on 15 November, 2017
$~11
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 15th November, 2017
+ MAC APPEAL No. 266/2014
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY
LTD. ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. A.K. Soni, Adv.
versus
ASMA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Jyoti Batra & Ms. Anita,
Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. Salim @ Mohd. Salim, aged 20 years, a bachelor, died due to
injuries suffered in motor vehicular accident that occurred on
11.07.2013 due to negligent driving of motor vehicle described as one
bearing registration no. DL 1LR 7414. His mother and three siblings,
they being first to fourth respondents (collectively, the claimants),
instituted accident claim case (suit no. 460/2013) on 04.09.2013. The
tribunal, by judgment dated 06.12.2013, awarded compensation in the
sum of Rs. 18,02,952/-, and fastened the liability on the appellant
(insurer), it admittedly having insured the vehicle against third party
risk for the period in question. The amount of compensation includes
loss of dependency calculated by the impugned judgment on the basis
of Rs. 7,722/- (minimum wages of unskilled worker) and 50% added
towards future prospects on which deduction of 1/3rd was made
towards personal and living expenses and multiplier of 18 was
applied, besides Rs. 1,00,000/- towards loss of love & affection; Rs.
25,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of
estate.
2. The computation of compensation is questioned by the insurer,
reliance being placed on the judgment of a 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., to argue
that in such a case, the element of future prospects should have been
restricted to 40% and that deduction on account of personal & living
expenses should have been to the extent of 50% in view of the ruling
in Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009)
6 SCC 121, the non-pecuniary damages awarded also being excessive.
3. Per contra, the counsel for the claimants submits that since
there are four claimants, the deduction should have been to the extent
of 1/4th.
4. Following the ruling in Pranay Sethi (supra), the future
prospects cannot be more than 40% in the present case. In view of the
ruling in Sarla Verma (supra), the personal & living expenses in the
case of bachelor will have to be to the extent of 50%. Thus, the loss of
dependency is recalculated as (7,722 x 140 ÷ 100 x 1/2 x 12 x 18) Rs.
11,67,566.40, rounded off to Rs. 11,68,000/-.
5. In view of the ruling in Pranay Sethi (supra), non-pecuniary
damages are also revised to Rs. 15,000/- each towards loss to estate
and funeral expenses.
6. Therefore, the total compensation comes to (11,68,000 + 15,000
+ 15,000) Rs. 11,98,000/- (Rupees Eleven Lakh ninety eight thousand
only). The award is modified accordingly. It shall carry interest as
levied by the tribunal.
7. By order dated 26.03.2014, the insurance company had been
directed to deposit the entire awarded amount with upto date interest
with the Registrar General within the period specified and out of such
deposit 80% was permitted to be released to the claimants. Since the
award has been reduced, it is clear that excess has already been
released to the claimants who are liable to refund. They are directed to
do so by requisite deposit with the tribunal within thirty days. In case
of default, the insurance company will have the liberty to take out
appropriate proceedings before the tribunal. The balance in deposit
with statutory deposit shall be refunded to the insurance company.
8. The appeal is disposed of in above terms.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
NOVEMBER 15, 2017
nk
