Delhi High Court
Reliance General Insurance ... vs Kiran Devi & Ors on 12 February, 2018
$~4
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision : February 12, 2018
+ MAC.APP. 864/2015, CM Nos.26676/2015 & 32701/2015
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY ..... Appellant
Through: Ms.Neerja Sachdeva, Advocate
versus
KIRAN DEVI & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.S.N.Parashar, Advocate for R-5 and R-6
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
(ORAL)
1. Impugned award of 21st July, 2015 grants compensation of
`13,16,896/- with interest @ 9% per annum to first four respondents-
claimants on account of death of one Roopesh, S/o Umesh Chand who had
suffered fatal injuries in a vehicular accident on 1st May, 2008. The breakup
of the compensation granted by Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') is as under:-
1. Loss of dependency: ` 8,71,896/-
2. Loss of love & affection: ` 4,00,000/-
(Rs.1 lakh each to petitioners no.1 to 4)
3. Funeral expenses: ` 25,000/-
4. Loss of estate: ` 10,000/-
5. Loss of consortium: ` 10,000/-
____________
Total compensation: `13,16,896/-
____________
Mac.A.No.864/2015 Page 1
2. The factual background of this case already stands noticed by the
learned Tribunal in the opening paragraphs of the award of 21st July, 2015
and hence needs no reproduction. Suffice to note that deceased was aged 27
years on the day of the accident and his income has been assessed by the
Tribunal on minimum wages of `3,799/- per month of a semi-skilled
labourer and an addition of 50% has been made towards future prospects
and after deducting 1/4th towards the personal expenses of the deceased and
by applying multiplier of 17, the loss of dependency has been assessed as
`4,274x17x12 = `8,71,896/-.
3. Learned Tribunal has found that the driver of the offending vehicle in
question was possessing two driving licences but it could not be established
that these driving licences were fake and so recovery rights have not been
granted to appellant-Insurer. Impugned award gives an option to
appellant/Insurer to recover the compensation paid if it comes to a
conclusion that the driving licences in question were fake. It is matter of
record that the driver of the offending vehicle in question had obtained one
driving licence from Motor Vehicle Department in Mathura (U.P.) and
another one from Motor Vehicle Department of Fatehgarh in Farrukhabad
and one of the driving licence was recovered in the police case, whereas the
driver of offending vehicle in question had stepped into the witness box and
had relied upon the driving licence issued by Motor Vehicle Department in
Mathura (U.P.). As per evidence of appellant's witness-Gaurav Ahuja, R-
3W1/A, the driving licence issued by licensing authority in Mathura was not
valid for driving a tractor with attached trolley and as per this witness,
Mac.A.No.864/2015 Page 2
Section 6 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 prohibits holding of two driving
licences at a time. On the basis of the evidence led, impugned award has
been rendered.
4. Learned counsel for appellant-Insurer assails the impugned award on
the ground that clear cut recovery rights ought to have been granted to
appellant because the driver of the offending vehicle was found in
possession of two driving licences which is illegal. Learned counsel for
appellant-Insurer submits that the minimum wages of an unskilled labourer
ought to have been made the basis to assess the income of the deceased and
deduction of 1/3rd towards personal expenses to deceased ought to have been
made because father of deceased was not dependant upon him. It is
submitted that in view of the Constitution Bench decision of Supreme Court
in National Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. 2017 ACJ 2700
addition of 40% only is to be made towards the future prospects and the
non-pecuniary damages ought to be confined to `70,000/- only and so the
impugned award deserves to be suitably modified.
5. Learned counsel for respondents-driver and owner of offending
vehicle in question submits that there is no clear finding of any of the
driving licences of driver of vehicle in question being fake and since the
driver of vehicle in question has relied upon the driving licence issued by the
licensing authority in Mathura which has been found to be genuine,
therefore no recovery rights ought to be granted to appellant. It is further
submitted that deceased was self-employed as he was selling samosas and
pakoras etc. and so he has been rightly considered to be a semi-skilled
worker and that the compensation has been rightly assessed in light of then
Mac.A.No.864/2015 Page 3
prevalent legal position and so this appeal deserves dismissal. Respondent-
claimants are unrepresented despite being served in this appeal.
6. Upon hearing and on perusal of the impugned award, the evidence on
record and the decision cited, I find that appellant-Insurer itself has relied
upon the driving licence issued by the licensing authority in Mathura and so,
appellant cannot derive any benefit out of the offence committed by the
driver of the vehicle in question as the offence of holding two driving
licences at a time is punishable under Section 182 of the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988 and thus it gives no justification to grant recovery rights to
appellant. Since deceased was engaged in making and selling of samosas
and pakoras etc. therefore he has been rightly considered to be a semi-skilled
worker. Reference by appellant's counsel to Supreme Court decision in
Sarla Verma (Smt.) & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. (2009)
6 SCC 121, to exclude father of deceased as dependant is of no assistance
for the reason that there is no cross-examination of the claimants regarding
there being no dependency of father of deceased on him. So far as addition
of 50% towards future prospects of deceased is concerned, I find that
Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi's case (supra) has ruled that in case of self-
employed person in the age bracket in question, addition of 40% is to be
made towards future prospects.
7. So far as non-pecuniary damages are concerned, I find that in view of
Supreme Court decision in Pranay Sethi's case (supra), no compensation
under the head of 'Loss of Love and Affection' is to be granted and hence
grant of `4,00,000/- as compensation under this head is disallowed and the
funeral expenses of `25,000/- granted by the Tribunal are reduced to
Mac.A.No.864/2015 Page 4
`15,000/- but the compensation granted under the head of 'Loss of Estate' is
enhanced from `10,000/- to `15,000/- and the compensation granted under
the head of 'Loss of Consortium' is increased from `10,000/- to `40,000/-.
8. While taking the income of the deceased to be `3,799/- per month and
by adding 40% towards future prospects and by subtracting 1/4 th towards
personal expenses of the deceased, the income of deceased is re-assessed at
`3,990/- per month. By applying multiplier of 17, the loss of dependency is
re-assessed as `3,990x17x12 = `8,13,960/-. Thus, the compensation
payable to the legal heirs of deceased is re-assessed as under:-
1. Loss of dependency: `8,13,960/-
2. Funeral expenses: ` 15,000/-
3. Loss of estate: ` 15,000/-
4. Loss of consortium: ` 40,000/-
____________
Total compensation: `8,83,960/-
____________
9. In light of the aforesaid, the compensation granted by the Tribunal is
reduced from `13,16,896/- to `8,83,960/- which shall carry interest @ 9%
per annum and the modified compensation be disbursed in the same mode
and ratio as already indicated by the Tribunal. Registry is directed to refund
the excess deposit and statutory deposit to appellant and to release the
compensation to the claimants as per this judgment.
10. With aforesaid directions, this appeal and the applications stand
disposed of.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
FEBRUARY 12, 2018
mamta
Mac.A.No.864/2015 Page 5
