Delhi High Court
Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr vs Ramhet Verma & Anr on 21 September, 2017
$~6
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 21st September, 2017
+ MAC.APP. 165/2016 and CM 6355/2016
DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION & ANR ... Appellants
Through: Mr. Sarfaraz Khan and Mr. Ataur
Rahman, Advocates for R-1
versus
RAMHET VERMA & ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Pankaj Gupta for Ms. Suman
Bagga, Advocate for United India Insurance
Co. Ltd.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. On 04.06.2011, Rekha Devi, suffered injuries in a motor
vehicular accident that occurred in the area of Kanjhawala Road,
Sector-22, Rohini, Delhi due to the negligent driving of a bus bearing
registration no.DL-1PB-5590 owned by the first appellant and died in
the consequence. The bus was insured against third party risk
covering the period in question with the second respondent (insurer).
The claimants, described collectively as the first respondent, being
members of the family dependent on the deceased instituted accident
claim case (suit no.160/11) on 12.07.2011.
2. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Tribunal), held inquiry
and, by judgment dated 07.09.2015, accepted the case for
compensation on the principle of fault liability holding the second
appellant, driver of the bus responsible. The tribunal awarded the total
compensation in the sum of Rs.17,38,353/- calculating it thus :-
Medical Bills Rs.18,408/-
Loss of dependency Rs.15,84,945/-
Loss of love and affection Rs.1,00,000/-
Funeral expenses Rs.25,000/-
Loss of consortium to petitioner no.1 Rs.10,000/-
Total Rs.17,38,353/-
3. Though the insurer was called upon to satisfy the said award of
compensation with interest at the rate of 9% p.a., in view of the
finding on the issue of breach of terms and conditions of the insurance
policy, the insurer was granted recovery rights against the first
appellant, the registered owner of the bus.
4. The appeal by the registered owner and driver of the bus is
pressed at the hearing only to question the calculation of loss of
dependency on the ground that the element of future prospects of
increase was wrongly added over and above the income notionally
assessed with the help of minimum wages for a matriculate
(Rs.7,826/- p.m.).
5. Though the claimants had been duly served and had even
appeared, at the hearing, there is no appearance on their behalf. The
learned counsel for the appellant and the insurer have been heard and
the record has been perused.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. The submission of the appellant about the future prospects must
be accepted for the reason that the tribunal did not have any cogent
evidence before it with regard to the engagement of the deceased in a
gainful employment much less the prospects of progressive rise of
earnings from time to time. It is noted that given the age of the
deceased, it being 39 years, the tribunal had applied the multiplier of
15 and made a deduction of one-fourth towards personal and living
expenses. The loss of dependency is re-computed as [Rs.7,826/- x 3 /
4 x 12 x 15] Rs.10,56,510/-, rounded off to Rs.10,57,000/- (Rupees
Ten Lakh and fifty seven thousand only).
9. It is, however, noted that the awards under the non-pecuniary
heads of damages granted by the tribunal are inadequate and there is
further deficiency on account of there being no award under the head
of loss to estate. Following the decision in Shriram General
Insurance Co Ltd v. Usha, MAC.APP.No.160/2015, decided on
05.05.2016, awards of Rs.1,50,000/- each towards loss of love and
affection and loss of consortium and Rs.50,000/- each towards loss to
estate and funeral expenses are added.
10. Putting together all the heads including the award of
Rs.18,408/- towards medical expenses, the total compensation in the
case comes to [Rs.10,57,000/- + Rs.18,408/- + Rs.1,50,000/- +
Rs.1,50,000/- + Rs.50,000/- + Rs.50,000/-] Rs.14,75,408/-, rounded
off to Rs.14,76,000/- (Rupees Fourteen Lakh and seventy six thousand
only). The award is modified accordingly. It shall carry interest as
levied by the tribunal. The statutory rights remained undisturbed.
11. The statutory deposit by the appellant shall be made over to the
insurer towards part satisfaction of its recovery rights.
12. The appeal and the pending application are disposed of in above
terms.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
SEPTEMBER 21, 2017
yg
