Back
2014 Supreme(Del) 1635
High Court of Delhi
SURESH KAIT, J.
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.
Versus
OM Prakash & Others
MAC. APP. No. 518 of 2014
Decided on: 03-07-2014
For the Appellant:P.K. Mishra, Advocate.
For the Respondents: None.
The assessment of compensation for motor accident claims is influenced by legal provisions in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and relevant legal precedents related to age, income assessment, and future prospects.
Headnote:
Insurance - Motor Accident Claim - MAC. APP. 518/2014 - The court discussed and referenced the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and its Second Schedule, along with legal principles established in various cases such as Sarla Verma vs. DTC and Ors., 2009 (6) SCC 121, Reshma Kumari & Ors. vs. Madan Mohan & Anr., and others.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant challenged the award of compensation for a motor accident claim, arguing on the deceased's age, income, and future prospects. The court analyzed the age of the deceased, income assessment, and legal precedents related to future prospects.
Finding of the Court:
The court found no merit in the appeal, dismissing it based on the settled law and the claimant's failure to prove the deceased's income and employment.
Issues: The issues revolved around the deceased's age, income assessment, and future prospects, as well as the application of legal precedents in determining compensation for the motor accident claim.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and its Second Schedule, along with legal principles established in cases such as Sarla Verma vs. DTC and Ors., 2009 (6) SCC 121, Reshma Kumari & Ors. vs. Madan Mohan & Anr., and others.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the application for stay was also dismissed as infructuous.
Suresh Kait, J. (Oral)
C.M. APPL. 9742/2014 (for exemption)
Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions.
The application stands disposed of.
MAC. APP. 518/2014
1. Admit.
2. Vide the present appeal the appellant/ Insurance Company has challenged the award dated 05.03.2014 whereby the learned Tribunal awarded compensation for an amount of Rs.6,97,140/-with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realisation of the amount.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the age of the deceased was 21 years on the date of the accident i.e. 03.03.2007 and he was a bachelor, thus, learned Tribunal ought to have applied the multiplier as per the age of parents.
4. The second issue raised in the instant appeal is that the claimant failed to prove that the deceased was in a permanent job and despite that the learned Tribunal added 50% in his actual income contrary to the settled law by the Apex Court in case of Sarla Verma vs. DTC and Ors., 2009 (6) SCC 121 affirmed by the Full Bench of the Apex Court in case of Reshma Kumari & Ors. vs. Madan Mohan & Anr. delivered in Civil Appeal No.4646 of 2009 on 02.04.2013.
5. As far as the issue of multiplier is concerned, the same has been decided by this Court in the case of Mohd. Hasnain & Ors. vs. Jagram Meena & Ors. bearing MAC. APP. No. 152/2014, decided on 24.03.2014, whereby this Court 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 163A and the Second Schedule of the Act, the Apex Court in Trilok Chandra, 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. 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 M. Nag Pal 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 dependents. 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.”
6. Admittedly, age of the deceased was 25 years on the date of accident. Thus, I find no substance in the argument of the counsel for the appellant on this issue.
7. As far as the issue of future prospects is concerned, this issue has already been dealt with by this Court in the case bearing MAC. APP. No.846/2011 titled as ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Angrej Singh & Ors., decided on 30.09.2013, while relying upon the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Rajesh and Ors.Vs. Rajbir Singh and Ors. 2013 (6) SCALE 563, wherein the Full Bench of the Supreme Court has held as under:-
“11. Since, the Court in Santosh Devi's case (supra) actually intended to follow the principle in the case of salaried persons as laid in Sarla Ve
