Delhi High Court
Future Generali India Insurance ... vs Jairam Ram & Ors. on 15 November, 2017
$~6
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 15th November, 2017
+ MAC.APP. 385/2016
FUTURE GENERALI INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.
..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Navneet Kumar & Mr.
Vikas Bhadana, Advs.
versus
JAIRAM RAM & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Pratap Singh & Mr. Sunil,
Advs. for R-1.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. Dina Nath, aged about 23 years, a bachelor, suffered injuries in
motor vehicular accident that occurred on 19.01.2014 due to negligent
driving of motor vehicle described as Tempo bearing registration no.
DL-1LQ-8105, admittedly insured against third party risk with the
appellant (insurer) and died in the consequence. On the accident claim
case (Petition No. 116/14) instituted, by his parents and sibling, on
29.04.2014, the tribunal held inquiry and, by judgment dated
04.01.2016, awarded compensation in the total sum of Rs. 14,45,000/-
calculating it thus:-
S.No. Heads Compensation
1. Loss of dependency Rs. 13,10,000/-
2. Loss of love & affection Rs. 1,00,000/-
3. Funeral expenses Rs. 25,000/-
4. Loss of estate Rs. 10,000/-
Total Rs. 14,45,000/-
2. The liability to pay compensation with interest @ 9% per
annum was fastened against the insurer which is in appeal questioning
the calculation of loss of dependency and non-pecuniary heads.
3. The tribunal noted that the claimants had not mustered evidence
about any clear proof of earnings of the deceased and, therefore,
adopted the minimum wages for 'unskilled person' of Rs.8086/- as the
benchmark, adding the future prospects of increase in income to the
extent of 50% and deducted 50% towards personal & living expenses
and applied the multiplier of 18 according to the age of the deceased.
4. Having regard to the ruling 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., in such
a case, the future prospects will have to be restricted to 40%. There is
no error in the adoption of the multiplier, in view of the ruling of the
Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi (supra), endorsing the view taken in
Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6
SCC 121.
5. Thus, the loss of dependency is recalculated as (8086/- x
140/100 x 1/2 x 12 x 18) Rs.12,22,603.20, rounded off to
Rs.12,23,000/-.
6. Following the dispensation in Pranay Sethi (supra), the non-
pecuniary damages also need to be modified. The amount of Rs.
15,000/- each towards loss to estate and funeral expenses are added.
Thus, the total compensation comes to (12,23,000 + 15,000 + 15,000)
Rs. 12,53,000/- (Rupees Twelve Lakhs Fifty Three Thousand only).
The award is modified accordingly.
7. There is no error in the levy of interest @ 9% per annum which
is in accord with dispensation consistently made by this Court. The
tribunal apportioned the award equally amongst the parents. The said
dispensation shall be followed vis-a-vis the modified award.
8. By order dated 06.05.2016, the insurance company had been
directed to deposit the entire awarded amount with interest with the
tribunal and out of such deposit 40% was permitted to be released to
the claimants. The tribunal shall calculate the balance payable to the
claimants in terms of the modification ordered above and release the
same to the claimants. The excess amount deposited shall be refunded
to the appellant.
9. The appeal is disposed of in above terms.
10. The statutory amount shall be refunded to the appellant.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
NOVEMBER 15, 2017
nk
