Delhi High Court
Shriram General Insurance Co Ltd vs Deep Chand & Ors on 11 September, 2017
$~5
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 11th September, 2017
+ MAC.APP. 170/2016 and CM 6579/2016
SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Priyadarsi Acharya, Advocate
versus
DEEP CHAND & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. M.K. Sharma, Adv. for R-1 &
2
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. Vikas Kumar, 19 years old, a bachelor, son of the first and
second respondents (claimants), died due to the injuries suffered on
account of a motor vehicular accident that occurred on 19.03.2014 at
about 11.30 p.m. due to the negligent driving of a truck bearing
registration no.UP-17B-3511 (truck), admittedly insured against third
party risk with the appellant / insurance company. The claimants
instituted accident claim case (case no.754/2014) on 10.07.2014
seeking compensation impleading, besides the driver-cum-owner of
the truck, its insurer (i.e. the appellant).
2. After inquiry, by judgment dated 22.12.2015, the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal (Tribunal), awarded compensation in the
sum of Rs.16,47,924/- and directed the insurer to pay with interest at
the rate of 9% p.a. The said amount includes Rs.15,87,924/- towards
loss of dependency calculated on the basis of minimum wages
(Rs.9,802/-) on which 50% was added towards future prospects of
increase and the multiplier of 18 applied taking the age of the
deceased as the benchmark after deduction of 50% towards personal
and living expenses.
3. The insurer, by the appeal at hand, questions the
aforementioned computation on the grounds that the future prospects
could not have been added and that the multiplier should have been
chosen as per the age of the mother.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. Since there was no formal proof of regular employment, leave
alone the possibility of future prospects of increase, such element will
have been kept out.
7. As per the copy of the election identity card of the second
respondent (mother), submitted at the hearing today, her age as on
01.01.2015 was 52 years. In this view, on the relevant date of
accident, she would be 51 years old and, thus, the multiplier of 11
would apply. The loss of dependency is recomputed as [Rs.9802 / 2 x
12 x 11] Rs.6,46,932/-, rounded off to Rs.6,47,000/- (Rupees Six lakh
and forty seven thousand only).
8. It is, however, noted that the tribunal has not properly
considered the awards under the non-pecuniary heads of damages,
Rs.25,000/- each towards the head of loss of love and affection and
funeral expenses and Rs.10,000/- towards loss to estate being
inadequate. Having regard to the date of the accident, following the
ruling in Shriram General Insurance Co Ltd v. Usha, MAC.APP.
160/2015, decided on 05.05.2016, award of Rs.1,50,000/- towards loss
of love and affection and Rs.50,000/- each towards loss of funeral
expenses and loss to estate are added.
9. This would mean the total compensation in the case would
come to [Rs.6,47,000/- + 1,50,000/- + Rs.50,000/- + Rs.50,000/-]
Rs.8,97,000/-. (Rupees Eight lakh and ninety seven thousand). The
award is modified accordingly. It shall carry interest as levied by the
tribunal.
10. By judgment dated 24.02.2016, the insurer had been directed to
deposit the entire awarded amount with up-to-date interest with the
tribunal and out of such deposit, 50% (fifty percent) was allowed to be
released to the claimants. The balance shall be released to the
claimants in terms of the modified award, refunding the excess in
deposit to the insurance company.
11. The statutory amount, if deposited, shall be refunded.
12. The appeal and the pending application are disposed of in above
terms.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
SEPTEMBER 11, 2017
yg
