Delhi High Court
Om Prakash vs Reliance Gen Ins Co Ltd & Ors. on 10 October, 2023
$~25
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 10.10.2023
+ MAC.APP. 75/2022
OM PRAKASH ..... Appellant
Through: Mr.Anshuman Bal, Adv.
versus
RELIANCE GEN INS CO LTD & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.A.K. Soni, Adv. for R-1.
Mr.Paramhans Yadav, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (ORAL)
1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant challenging
the Award dated 05.12.2019 (hereinafter referred to as the
'Impugned Award') passed by the learned Motor Accidents
Claims Tribunal, (North-West District), Rohini Courts, Delhi
(hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') in New No. 02/2017
(Unique ID No.DLNW01-009544-2016) titled as Smt. Geeta
and Anr. v. Sh.Amit Kumar and Ors.
2. The limited challenge of the appellant to the Impugned
Award is on the ground that as the deceased-Mr.Manish Kumar
was aged 15 years and 8 months on the date of the accident,
which had taken place on 27.08.2014, the learned Tribunal has
erred in determining his notional income on the basis of the
judgment of this Court in Chetan Malhotra v. Lala Ram, 2016
SCC OnLine Del 2981. The learned counsel for the appellant
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:SUNIL
Signing Date:16.10.2023
16:02:12
submits that the minimum wages for a non-matriculate should
have been adopted for determining the income of the deceased.
3. This Court, while considering similar submissions in
United India Insurance Company Limited v. Sh. Jamaluddin
Khan & Ors., 2023:DHC:6242, has held as under:-
"20. The above judgments, therefore, have not
laid down the basis on which notional income
in case of a child is to be determined by the
Tribunal, but have, on facts of those cases,
held that the notional income determined by
the learned Tribunal did not warrant any
interference.
21. In view of the above decisions of the
Supreme Court and of this Court, in my
opinion, the most reasonable basis for
determining the loss of dependency, even in
the case of a minor, would be the minimum
wages notified by the State Government where
the minor resides at the time of the accident.
As the notional income is being determined on
basis of the minimum wages, I deem it
appropriate also to add future prospects to
such income at the rate of 40% by applying the
principle laid down by the Supreme Court in
National Insurance Company Limited v.
Pranay Sethi And Others, (2017) 16 SCC
680."
4. In view of the above, the Impugned Award, insofar as it
determines the income of the deceased based on the judgment
of this Court in Chetan Malhotra (Supra), is set aside. The
income of the deceased is determined on the basis of the
minimum wages as notified by the Government of NCT of
Delhi for a non-matriculate, which at that relevant time was
Rs.9,438/- per month.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:SUNIL
Signing Date:16.10.2023
16:02:12
5. As the deceased was aged 15 years and 8 months, in view
of the judgment of this Court in Sheeba @ Shiva v. TATA AIG
Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd. & Ors., 2023:DHC:5084, multiplier of 18
would be applicable.
6. In view of the above, the compensation to be awarded to
the appellant towards loss of dependency is re-determined as
under:-
Income of deceased (A) Rs.9438/-
Add: Future prospects 40% (B) Rs.3775.20/-
Less:- Personal expenses of the 1/2
deceased
Monthly loss of Dependency Rs.6606.60/-
(A+B)-C=D
Annual Dependency (DX12) Rs.79,279.20/-
LOSS OF DEPENDENCY Rs,14,27,025.60/-
Rounded off to
Rs. 14,27,026/-
7. The learned counsel for the appellant further submits that
the learned Tribunal has also erred in not awarding
compensation towards loss of consortium, loss of estate, and
towards funeral expenses.
8. In view of the judgment of Supreme Court in National
Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and Others,
(2017) 16 SCC 680, and as explained by United India
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:SUNIL
Signing Date:16.10.2023
16:02:12
Insurance Company Limited v. Satinder Kaur alias Satwinder
Kaur and Others, (2021) 11 SCC 780, the appellant is held
entitled to compensation towards loss of consortium at
Rs.80,000/-; loss of estate Rs.15,000/-; and towards loss of
funeral expenses Rs.15,000/-. The total compensation, to which
the appellant is held entitled, is as under:
S.No. Particulars Amounts
1. Loss of Dependency Rs.14,27,026/-
2. Medical Expenses Rs.18,09,042/-
3. Loss of consortium Rs.80,000/-
4. Loss of Estate Rs.15,000/-
5. Funeral Expenses Rs.15,000/-
6. Total Amount Rs.33,46,068/-
9. The above compensation amount shall carry interest at
the rate as awarded by the learned Tribunal in the Impugned
Award.
10. The respondent no.1 shall deposit the enhanced amount
of compensation with the learned Tribunal within a period of
eight weeks from today.
11. I may herein note that before the learned Tribunal, there
were two claimants, that is, the parents of the deceased.
Unfortunately, claimant no.1/mother of the deceased, in the
meantime, has expired. The entire awarded amount, as
enhanced by this order, shall now be released in favour of the
appellant/Father of the deceased, who was the claimant no.2
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:SUNIL
Signing Date:16.10.2023
16:02:12
before the learned Tribunal, in terms of the Schedule of
Disbursal prescribed by the learned Tribunal in the Impugned
Award.
12. The appeal is allowed in the above terms. There shall be
no order as to costs.
NAVIN CHAWLA, J
OCTOBER 10, 2023/rv/SS
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:SUNIL
Signing Date:16.10.2023
16:02:12
