Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 508 (DEL)

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LIMITED v. KHEM CHAND

2016-01-29

R.K.GAUBA

body2016
JUDGMENT : R.K. GAUBA, J. 1. The award of compensation of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Tribunal) by judgment dated 10.04.2015 in claim case registered as Suit No. 699 of 2014 is challenged on three short grounds by the insurance company which otherwise admits its liability against third party risk respecting the offending vehicle. 2. In calculating the award of compensation on the petition brought by the parents of Praveen Kumar, who died in the motor vehicular accident on 24.09.2014 and who admittedly was a bachelor, the Tribunal has factored in future prospects to the extent of 50% even though the income of the deceased to the tune of Rs. 15,000/- from his business of leather garments was not strictly proved and, thus, the Tribunal adopted the minimum wages for unskilled workers at Rs. 8,554/- as the benchmark. The insurance company is also aggrieved for the reason that in calculating the loss of dependency, the Tribunal adopted the multiplier of 18, this having regard to the age (24 years) of the deceased rather than that of the mother, admittedly 45 years old at the relevant point of time. The insurance company further questions the levy of interest @ 9% per annum pleading that it be reduced. 3. The learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 ad 2 (collectively, the claimants) fairly conceded that the multiplier has to be adopted on the basis of the age of the deceased or the claimants, whichever is higher. Kerala State Road Transport Corporation vs. Susamma Thomas, (1994) 2 SCC 176 and U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and Others vs. Trilok Chandra and Others, (1996) 4 SCC 362 . Having regard to the dictum in Sarla Verma & Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 , the multiplier of 14 should have been adopted to calculate the loss of dependency. 4. In the case reported as Sarla Verma (supra), 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. 4. In the case reported as Sarla Verma (supra), 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 & Others vs. Madan Mohan & Another, (2013) 9 SCC 65 , on account of divergence of views, as arising from the ruling in Rajesh & Others vs. Rajbir & Others, (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 & Others, (2015) 9 SCC 166 . 5. Against the above backdrop, by judgment dated 22.01.2016 passed in MAC Appeal No. 956 of 2012 (Sunil Kumar vs. Pyar Mohd.), this Court has found it proper to follow the view taken earlier by a learned single judge in MAC Appeal No. 189 of 2014 (HDFC Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Lalta Devi & Others) decided on 12.1.2015, 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. This applies to the matter at hand because the claimant here pleaded about gainful employment at a fixed salary and has not led any evidence showing the salary was subject to any periodic increase. 6. In view of the above, no benefit on account of future prospects can be accorded. Thus, the loss of dependency needs to be reworked. 7. It is noted that the Tribunal deducted 50% on account of personal and living expenses and took the multiplicand of Rs. 4,277/- as the loss of monthly dependency. By this reckoning the total loss of dependency, on the multiplier of 14, works out to (4277 x 12 x 14) Rs. 7,18,536/-. 8. Adding the non-pecuniary damages on account of love and affection, funeral expenses and loss of estate, as granted by the Tribunal in the total sum of Rs. 1,35,000/-, the total compensation payable comes to Rs. 8,53,536/- rounded off to Rs. 8,54,000/-. The award of compensation is accordingly modified. 9. 7,18,536/-. 8. Adding the non-pecuniary damages on account of love and affection, funeral expenses and loss of estate, as granted by the Tribunal in the total sum of Rs. 1,35,000/-, the total compensation payable comes to Rs. 8,53,536/- rounded off to Rs. 8,54,000/-. The award of compensation is accordingly modified. 9. Having regard to the consistent view in Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Delhi vs. Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy and Others, (2011) 14 SCC 481; Surti Gupta vs. United India Insurance Company and Others, 2015 (3) SCALE 795; Basappa vs. T. Ramesh, (2014) 10 SCC 789 ; Kumari Kiran vs. Sajjan Singh, (2015) 1 SCC 539 and Syed Sadiq vs. Divisional Manager, United India Ins. Company, (2014) 2 SCC 735 , there is no justification for reducing the rate of interest. 10. The appellant insurance company had been directed to deposit 50% of the awarded amount with proportionate interest by order dated 22.05.2014 out of which a portion was allowed to be released to the claimants. The balance of the deposit lying with UCO Bank, Delhi High Court Branch shall also be released in favour of the claimants forthwith. The Registrar General shall take suitable steps in this regard on the claimants approaching him with proper application. 11. In terms of the modification, the insurance company shall be liable to deposit the balance of the compensation payable in terms of the modified award within 30 days of today with the Tribunal which shall release it in accordance with the directions given in the impugned order, as modified. 12. Statutory deposit, if made, shall be refunded. 13. The appeal is disposed of in above terms.