Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1139 (DEL)

Rakesh v. National Insurance Co. Ltd.

2014-04-02

SURESH KAIT

body2014
JUDGMENT : Suresh Kait, J. 1. The present appeal has been preferred against the impugned award dated 28.4.2012, whereby learned Tribunal has awarded compensation for an amount of Rs. 15,62,560 with interest at the rate of 7.5 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization of the amount. Vide the present appeal, appellants are seeking enhancement of the compensation amount as noted above. 2. Mr. S.N. Parashar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, submits that the deceased Rohan Tyagi was a graduate (B.Sc.) and MBA from Pune. He was working as Marketing Associate in MA-Foi Management Consultants Limited under CRISIL, Sarita Vihar, Delhi and was earning Rs. 24,165 per month. The employment of the deceased has been proved by PW-5, Dharampal, Senior Executive of the above noted establishment, who deposed that Rohan Tyagi was working in their office as a Marketing Associate for the last 8-10 months. Pay slip of the same is proved as Exh. PW-5/1. After deducting the allowances, the learned Tribunal has assessed the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 19,520. 3. PW-1, father of deceased, stated that his son was a graduate (B.Sc.) and MBA from Pune and was working as Marketing Associate in MA-Foi Management Consultants Ltd. under CRISIL, Sarita Vihar and was earning Rs. 24,165 per month. 4. Mr. Parashar further submits that on the date of accident, the deceased was 24 years of age. His salary was assessed at Rs. 19,520 per month by the learned Tribunal. Therefore, keeping in view the age of the deceased, learned Tribunal ought to have added 50 per cent in his actual income towards future prospects. 5. 24,165 per month. 4. Mr. Parashar further submits that on the date of accident, the deceased was 24 years of age. His salary was assessed at Rs. 19,520 per month by the learned Tribunal. Therefore, keeping in view the age of the deceased, learned Tribunal ought to have added 50 per cent in his actual income towards future prospects. 5. To strengthen his arguments, learned counsel has relied upon the case of Rajesh and Others vs. Rajbir Singh and Others, (2013) 9 SCC 54 , wherein it was held as under: "(11) Since the court in Santosh Devi vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. and Others, (2012) 6 SCC 421 , actually intended to follow the principle in the case of salaried persons as laid in Smt. Sarla Verma and Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 and to make it applicable also to the self-employed and persons on fixed wages, it is clarified that the increase in the case of those groups is not 30 per cent always; it will also have a reference to the age. In other words, in the case of self-employed or persons with fixed wages, in case the deceased victim was below 40 years, there must be an addition of 50 per cent to the actual income of the deceased while computing future prospects. Needless to say that the actual income should be income after paying the tax, if any. Addition should be 30 per cent in case the deceased was in the age group of 40 to 50 years. (12) In Sarla Verma's case (supra), it has been stated that in the case of those above 50 years, there shall be no addition. Having regard to the fact that in the case of those self-employed or on fixed wages, where there is normally no age of superannuation, we are of the view that it will only be just and equitable to provide an addition of 15 per cent in the case where the victim is between the age group of 50 to 60 years so as to make the compensation just, equitable, fair and reasonable. There shall normally be no addition thereafter." 6. Mr. There shall normally be no addition thereafter." 6. Mr. Parashar further submits that keeping in view the age of the mother of the deceased, learned Tribunal applied the multiplier of 13 whereas as per the settled law, the age of the deceased had to be considered. 7. He also submits that towards non-pecuniary damages, learned Tribunal has awarded only Rs. 40,000, which is on the lower side. 8. On the other hand, Mr. Ram Ashray, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the insurance company, submits that the claimants failed to prove the employment of the deceased with CRISIL and his income of Rs. 24,165 per month. No proof of the same is brought on record and no witness has been examined from his employer. Thus, in the absence of the same, learned Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 19,520 per month. 9. He further submits that since the appellants failed to establish the employment of the deceased, therefore, keeping in view the dictum of the Apex Court in Smt. Sarla Verma and Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 , the learned Tribunal has not added any amount in his actual income towards future prospects. 10. On the issue of multiplier, learned counsel for the respondent insurance company submits that learned Tribunal has applied the multiplier of 13 after considering the age of the mother of the deceased, as he was a bachelor. 11. On the issue of non-pecuniary damages, learned counsel submits that keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, learned Tribunal has awarded a consolidated amount of Rs. 40,000 as compensation towards non-pecuniary losses. 12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 13. On the issue of income, the appellants have failed to prove the employment of the deceased. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that learned Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 19,520 per month. 14. As far as the issue of future prospects is concerned, this issue has been dealt with by this court in the case titled as ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Angrej Singh and Others, (2014) ACJ 2006, while relying upon the dictum of Rajesh (supra). 15. Admittedly, deceased was 24 years of age on the date of accident. 14. As far as the issue of future prospects is concerned, this issue has been dealt with by this court in the case titled as ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Angrej Singh and Others, (2014) ACJ 2006, while relying upon the dictum of Rajesh (supra). 15. Admittedly, deceased was 24 years of age on the date of accident. Accordingly, keeping his age into view, I add 50 per cent in his actual income towards future prospects. 16. As far as the issue of multiplier is concerned, this issue has been dealt with by this court in the case of Mohd. Hasnain and Others vs. Jagram Meena and Others, (2014) 2 ACC 147, wherein it was held as under: "(21) The maximum value of the multiplier is fixed at 18' which is fairly representing the purchasing capacity of a victim in a stable economy. In the ascertainment of purchasing capacity of the victim, the age of the claimant has no relevance because of the fact that it has no nexus with the assessment of the loss of dependency. (22) Moreover, subsequent to the introduction of section 163-A and the Second Schedule to the Act, the Apex Court in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and Others vs. Trilok Chandra and Others, (1996) 4 SCC 362 , introduced a structural change by increasing the numerical value of multiplier from 16' to 18' whereas it had been fixed at 16' as per Susamma Thomas, 1994 ACJ 1 (SC). Specifically, there was no variation in respect of fundamental premise of multiplier method as held in Susamma Thomas. In Trilok Chandra, the Apex Court has taken the Second Schedule as a guiding factor. (23) Significantly, the Apex Court in the case of Reshma Kumari and Others vs. Madan Mohan and Another, (2013) 9 SCC 65 , has followed the age of the victim as a factor for selecting the multiplier. Specifically, in the selection of multiplier for the age group up to 15' the Apex Court never considered the age of the claimants as a relevant factor. Therefore, this court finds no reason to adopt a different formula for the victim who is above 15' years of age, whereas the relevant factors have been adopted by the Apex Court such as (i) age of the deceased, (ii) income of the deceased and (iii) number of dependants. Therefore, this court finds no reason to adopt a different formula for the victim who is above 15' years of age, whereas the relevant factors have been adopted by the Apex Court such as (i) age of the deceased, (ii) income of the deceased and (iii) number of dependants. The Apex Court, while formulating the relevant factors for the assessment of loss of dependency, the age of the claimants never considered as a factor. Finally, in the assessment of dependency, the courts/Tribunals are computing the purchasing capacity of the deceased; not the claimants. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the age of the victim is the proper factor for selecting the correct multiplier." 17. Keeping in mind the view taken by this court in the above noted case, I am of the opinion that the learned Tribunal has wrongly applied the multiplier of 13 instead of 18. 18. It is ordered accordingly. 19. As far as the issue of non-pecuniary damages is concerned, deceased died at the age of 24 years. He was a graduate (B.Sc.) and MBA from Pune. He left behind parents, who lost the love and affection and support of their son. Accordingly, I award an amount of Rs. 1,00,000 for loss of love and affection and Rs. 25,000 for funeral expenses. 20. Consequently, the compensation comes as under: Resultantly, compensation is assessed at Rs. 32,97,240. 21. Accordingly, the enhanced compensation comes to Rs. 17,34,680 (Rs. 32,97,240 - Rs. 15,62,560). 22. The enhanced amount shall carry interest at the rate of 7.5 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization. 23. Accordingly, the respondent No. 1, insurance company, is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation amount with up-to-date interest with the Registrar General of this court within a period of five weeks from today, failing which appellants-claimants shall be entitled for penal interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum on account of delayed payment. 24. On deposit, the Registrar General is directed to release 50 per cent of the amount in favour of the appellants-claimants proportionately in terms of the order dated 28.4.2012 passed by the learned Tribunal and the remaining 50 per cent shall be invested in FDR with UCO Bank, Delhi High Court Branch, New Delhi, for a period of three years. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed.