Full Judgment Text
$~R-116
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
Decided on: 17 August, 2017
+ MAC.APP. 512/2009 and CM APPL.14726/2009
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD...... Appellant
Through: Mr. Arun Yadav, Advocate
versus
ANGURI DEVI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Nemo.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. On 04.09.2007, Nouwat Singh suffered injuries in a motor
vehicular accident due to negligent driving of motor vehicle described
as car bearing registration No.DL-3CAF-5638, admittedly insured
against third party risk for the period in question with the appellant
insurance company (insurer) and died in the consequence. His wife
and children, they being first to sixth respondent herein (collectively,
the claimants), instituted accident claim case (MACT No.53/2008),
which, after inquiry, was allowed, by judgment dated 28.08.2009,
compensation in the sum of Rs.8,61,000/- having been awarded with
interest @ seven and half per cent (7.5%) per annum, the liability
being fastened on the appellant (insurer).
MAC Appeal No. 512/2009 Page 1 of 5
2. The insurer questions the computation by the appeal at hand
pointing out that the tribunal has added the element of future prospects
even though the income was assumed with the aid of minimum wages
(Rs.3600/-). It is also pointed out that the tribunal had found that the
second and third respondents were married sons of the deceased and,
therefore, they were not dependents, the sixth respondent being
married daughter, also not financially dependent. In these
circumstances, there were three prime claimants they being the first,
fourth and fifth respondent. The submissions of insurer is that, in this
view, the deduction on account of personal and living expenses should
have been made to the extent of one-third rather than one-fourth, as
done by the tribunal.
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. ),
MAC Appeal No. 512/2009 Page 2 of 5
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. Indeed, there being no clear evidence as to the nature of
avocation or regularity of the gainful employment, the income having
been assumed on the basis of minimum wages, the element of future
prospects has to be kept out. Further, given the above status of the
children, the deduction on account of personal and living expenses
should have been made only to the extent of one-third. The tribunal
correctly adopted the multiplier of 14, given the age of the deceased as
45 years.
6. In above view, the compensation on account of loss of
dependency is worked out as (3600/- x 2/3 x 12 x 14) Rs.4,03,200/-
rounded off to Rs.4,04,000/-.
7. It is, however, noted that the tribunal did not award the non-
pecuniary damages appropriately. The tribunal awarded Rs.1,50,000/-
towards loss of love and affection and Rs.10,000/- each towards loss
of consortium and funeral expenses and loss of estate which was not
appropriate.
MAC Appeal No. 512/2009 Page 3 of 5
8. Given the dispensation in Rajesh & Ors. v. Rajbir Singh & Ors. ,
(2013) 9 SCC 54 and Shashikala V. Gangalakshmamma (2015) 9 SCC
150, compensation in the sum of Rs.1 lakh each on account of loss of
love & affection and loss of consortium and Rs.25,000/- each towards
loss of estate and funeral expense are added. Thus, the total
compensation payable in the case is computed as (4,04,000/- +
2,50,000) Rs.6,54,000/-.
9. The award is modified accordingly.
10. Following the consistent view taken by this Court [see judgment
dated 22.02.2016 in MAC.APP. 165/2011 Oriental Insurance Co Ltd
v. Sangeeta Devi & Ors .], the rate of interest is increased to nine per
cent (9%) per annum from the date of filing of the petition till
realization.
11. The tribunal apportioned the award by specifying the amounts
that would fall to the share of different claimants. By order dated
21.10.2009, the insurance company had been directed to deposit the
entire awarded amount with upto date interest with UCO Bank, Delhi
High Court Branch, New Delhi. By order dated 09.12.2009, the
learned Single Judge, then in seisin of the case, allowed partial release
from the said deposited amount directing the balance Rs.8 lacs to be
kept in fixed deposit for the period specified, allowing interest to be
paid periodically.
12. The registry shall now calculate the amount payable to the
claimants in terms of the modification ordered above, refunding the
excess in deposit, if any, to the insurance company. In case there is
MAC Appeal No. 512/2009 Page 4 of 5
deficiency in the payment made to the claimants, the insurance
company will be duty bond to make the requisite deposit of the
deficient amount with the tribunal within thirty days so that it can be
released to the claimants.
13. Given the fresh dispensation, it is directed that the amount
already released to the other claimants shall be treated as their
respective shares, the entire balance to be now paid to the first
claimant (first respondent Anguri Devi) only
14. The statutory amount shall be refunded to the appellant
insurance company.
15. The appeal along with accompanying application stands
disposed of in above terms.
16. Dasti.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
AUGUST 17, 2017
vk
MAC Appeal No. 512/2009 Page 5 of 5