Delhi High Court
National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Sarvesh & Ors on 27 September, 2017
$~R-281
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 27th September, 2017
+ MAC.APP.873/2010
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. ..... Appellant
Through: Ms. Neerja Sachdeva, Advocate
versus
SARVESH & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: None
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. Sonu, a bachelor, aged 19 years, died due to injuries suffered in
a motor vehicular accident that occurred on 09.10.2009 due to the
negligent driving of a motor vehicle described as one bearing
registration no.DL-1V-8695. The accident claim case (suit
no.63/10/09) instituted on 15.10.2009 by his mother (first respondent),
resulted in a judgment dated 30.09.2010 whereby compensation in the
total sum of Rs.7,25,000/- was granted, it having been apportioned
amongst the mother and three siblings of the deceased. The amount of
compensation thus awarded was directed to be paid by the appellant /
insurance company, it having been calculated thus :-
Compensation for loss of dependency Rs.7,20,000/-
Compensation for loss of estate Rs.10,000/-
Compensation for funeral expenses Rs.5,000/-
Compensation for loss of love and Rs.40,000/-
affection
Total Rs.7,75,000/-
Less: Interim compensation Rs.50,000/-
Rs.7,25,000/-
2. The insurance company, by the appeal at hand, questions the
calculation of loss of dependency pointing out two errors; one, that the
tribunal has added the element of future prospects of increase in
income to the extent of 50% against income notionally arrived at with
the help of minimum wages (Rs.4,000/- pm.) and, second, that the
deduction on account of the personal and living expenses was made to
the extent of one-third.
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. Since there was no clear proof of regular employment of the
deceased or of progressive rise in income, the element of future
prospects has to be kept out. It being a case of a bachelor's death,
the personal and living expenses has to be deducted to the extent of
50%. Upon being re-calculated, with the multiplier of 15, correctly
chosen by the tribunal, the loss of dependency is worked out as
[Rs.4,000/2 x 12 x 15] Rs.3,60,000/- (Rupees Three lakh and sixty
thousand only).
6. It is, however, also noted that the awards under the non-
pecuniary heads of damages are inadequate. Following the rulings in
Rajesh & Ors. v. Rajbir Singh & Ors., (2013) 9 SCC 54 and
Shashikala V. Gangalakshmamma (2015) 9 SCC 150, award of
Rs.1,00,000/- is added towards loss of love and affection and
Rs.25,000/- each towards loss to estate and funeral expenses.
7. Thus, the total compensation in the case comes to
[Rs.3,60,000/- + Rs.1,00,000/- + Rs.25,000/- + Rs.25,000/-]
Rs.5,10,000/- (Rupees Five lakh and ten thousand only). Needles to
add, the interim compensation already awarded shall be deducted.
8. Following the consistent view taken by this Court, the rate of
interest is increased to 9% 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.]
9. By order dated 20.12.2010, the insurance company had been
directed to deposit the entire awarded amount with up-to-date interest.
By subsequent order dated 21.05.2012, fifty percent (50%) was
allowed to be released to the claimant, the balance retained in fixed
deposit. The Registry shall now calculate the balance payable to the
claimant and release the same from the remainder refunding the excess
in deposit with statutory deposit to the appellant / insurer.
10. The appeal is disposed of in above terms.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
SEPTEMBER 27, 2017
yg
