Delhi High Court
National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Veena Verma & Ors. on 11 October, 2017
$~R-315 & 316
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 11th October, 2017
+ MAC APPEAL No. 293/2011
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Shoumik Mazumdar, Adv.
versus
VEENA VERMA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Anshuman Bal, Adv.
+ MAC APPEAL No. 872/2017
VEENA VERMA & ORS. ..... Appellants
Through: Mr. Anshuman Bal, Adv.
versus
NATIONAL INS. CO. LTD. & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Shoumik Mazumdar, Adv.
for R-1.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. Manmohan Verma, aged 48 years, earning his livelihood from a
private business, died on account of injuries suffered in motor
vehicular accident that occurred on 25.09.2008 involving negligent
driving of motor vehicle described as truck trolla bearing registration
no. HR 55B 9425, admittedly insured against third party risk with
National Insurance Company Ltd. (appellant in MAC appeal no.
293/2011). His wife and other members of family dependent on the
deceased, they being appellants in MAC Appeal No. 872/2017
instituted accident claim case (MACT 412/09/08) on 04.10.2008. It
may be mentioned here that the original claimants included Smt.
Krishna Verma, mother of the deceased who having expired during
the pendency of the hearing on 03.12.2009, her name later stood
deleted. The Tribunal after inquiry, by judgment dated 24.11.2010,
granted compensation in the sum of Rs. 16,25,000/-, the liability to
pay having been fastened on the insurer though it having been granted
recovery rights against the driver and owner of the offending vehicle,
they being the other respondents in these appeals. The amount of
compensation, thus computed and awarded, included Rs. 15,89,887/-
towards loss of dependency, Rs.10,000/- each towards loss of love &
affection, loss of consortium and loss to estate and Rs. 5,000/- towards
funeral expenses.
2. Both the insurer and claimants have come up in appeal
questioning the computation of compensation. It is the argument of
the insurer that the element of future prospects of increase was
wrongly added. On the other hand, the claimants submit that the
income-tax return (ITR) for the assessment year 2008-09 as proved by
document (Ex.PW-1/4) showed the gross total income to be Rs.
1,56,710/-. It is their submission that the Tribunal fell into error by
taking the net income as the basis for calculation, the deductions being
on account of permissible savings. The claimants also submit that the
non-pecuniary damages awarded and the rate of interest levied by the
Tribunal are inadequate.
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
12.01.2015, 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. The ITR for AY-2008-09 (Ex.PW-1/4) was the only evidence
reflecting the income of the deceased. Indeed, there is no proof of any
regular earnings much less of the progressive rise in income. In these
circumstances, the element of future prospects of increase has to be
kept out. At the same time, the submissions of the claimants that the
gross income should have been the benchmark must be accepted.
6. The loss of dependency is thus, recomputed as (1,56,710 x 3 ÷4
x 13) Rs. 1,527,922.5, rounded off to Rs. 15,28,000/-.
7. Following the rulings in Rajesh & Ors. v. Rajbir Singh & Ors.,
(2013) 9 SCC 54 and Shashikala V. Gangalakshmamma (2015) 9 SCC
150, compensation in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- each on account of
loss of love & affection and loss of consortium and Rs. 25,000/- each
towards loss of estate and funeral expense are added.
8. Thus, the total compensation payable in the case is computed as
(15,28,000 + 1,00,000 + 1,00,000 + 25,000 + 25,000) Rs. 17,78,000/-
(Rupees seventeen lacs and seventy eight thousand only).
9. The compensation is increased accordingly. Following the
consistent view taken by this Court, the rate of interest is increased to
9% (nine per cent) 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.]
10. The insurance company had been directed by order dated
01.04.2011 to deposit the entire awarded amount within the period
specified and from out of such deposit 50% was allowed to be released
to the claimants. It is noted that the tribunal had specified the amounts
falling to the share of each claimant. Since the award has been
modified, it is directed that the balance lying in such deposit to be
released and the entire enhanced portion of the award including on
account of change of rate of interest shall fall exclusively to the share
Veena Verma (widow), the first appellant in MAC Appeal No.
872/2017, for it to be released to her in the form of interest bearing
fixed deposit receipt for a period of seven years with right to draw
periodic interest.
11. It is clarified that the above modification shall not affect the
recovery rights granted to the insurer.
12. The statutory amount deposited by the insurer shall be refunded
after proof is shown of the award having been satisfied.
13. The appeals stands disposed of.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
OCTOBER 11, 2017
nk
