Back
2015 Supreme(Del) 243
High Court of Delhi
G.P. MITTAL, J.
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Sarla Katiyar & Others – Respondent
MAC.APP. Nos. 467 & 657 of 2012
Decided On : 05-02-2015
Priyadarshi Gopal, Rameeza Hakim, Prem Chandra, Advocates.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the liability of the Insurance Company in case of vehicle theft and the principles for assessing the deceased's income, including future prospects.
Headnote:
Liability - Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - Skandia Insurance Company Limited v. Kokilaben Chandravadan (1987) 2 SCC 654, United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Lehru & Ors. (2003) 3 SCC 338 - The court discussed the liability of the Insurance Company in case of vehicle theft and the assessment of deceased's income. The court referred to various judgments to establish the principles of liability and income assessment.
Fact of the Case:
The appeals arose from a judgment passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarding compensation for the death of Babu Lal Katiyar in a motor vehicular accident. The court considered the evidence, including the deceased's income, and the contentions raised by the Insurance Company regarding future prospects and theft of the vehicle.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Insurance Company cannot escape liability in case of vehicle theft and discussed the assessment of the deceased's income. The court referred to various judgments to establish the principles of liability and income assessment.
Issues: The issues involved the assessment of deceased's income, addition towards future prospects, and the liability of the Insurance Company in case of vehicle theft.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the judgments in Skandia Insurance Company Limited v. Kokilaben Chandravadan (1987) 2 SCC 654 and United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Lehru & Ors. (2003) 3 SCC 338 to establish the principles of liability and income assessment.
Final Decision: The court enhanced the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal and provided detailed instructions for the disbursement of the compensation.
G.P. Mittal, J.
1. These two appeals arise out of judgment dated 25.02.2012 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) whereby compensation of Rs.8,77,073/- was awarded in favour of the Claimants for the death of deceased Babu Lal Katiyar, who died in a motor vehicular accident which occurred on 22.10.2009.
2. Appellant in MAC APP.467/2012 shall be referred to as the Insurance Company whereas Appellants in MAC APP.657/2012 shall be referred to as the Claimants for the sake of convenience.
3. During inquiry before the Claims Tribunal, the Claimants examined PW-2 Sushil Kumar, who was an eye witness to the accident. He testified about the manner of the accident. During evidence it was brought on record that deceased Babu Lal Katiyar was a practicing lawyer in Delhi High Court and Karkardooma Court and he was having an income of Rs.30,000/- per month.
4. In the absence of any authentic proof of the deceased’s income, the Claims Tribunal took minimum wages of a graduate, added 50% towards future prospects, deducted 1/4th towards personal and living expenses and applied the multiplier of 13, taking the age of the deceased to be 50 years.
5. The Claims Tribunal further awarded certain amounts towards non-pecuniary damages.
6. The following contentions are raised on behalf of the Insurance Company:-
(i) In the absence of any evidence with regard to future prospects, no addition was permissible towards the same; and
(ii) In case of theft of a vehicle, the Insurance Company has no liability to pay the compensation.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Claimants urges that the assessment of monthly income of deceased Babu Lal Katiyar is not proper and that the compensation awarded is on the lower side.
LIABILITY
8. As far as liability is concerned, the issue is no longer res integra in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Skandia Insurance Company Limited v. Kokilaben Chandravadan, (1987) 2 SCC 654. In a later judgment in United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Lehru & Ors., (2003) 3 SCC 338, the Supreme Court relied upon the judgment in Skandia Insurance Company Limited v. Kokilaben Chandravadan (1987) 2 SCC 654 and Sohan Lal Passi v. P. Sesh Reddy (1996) 5 SCC 21 and held that if a vehicle is stolen and the thief is caught and it is ascertained that he had no licence, the Insurance Company cannot avoid the liability. In the instant case also, the negligence has been duly proved. If the vehicle was stolen, the Insurance Compnay cannot escape the liability.
9. As far as income of the deceased is concerned, it is not in dispute that he was not filing Income Tax Returns. On the date of the accident, any income beyond Rs.1,60,000/- in case of a male, was subject to tax. It is a herculean task to make assessment of income of a person who is practicing law but is not being assessed to income tax and there is no documentary evidence produced with regard to his income. Yet, in order to award loss of dependency, the court will have to make some guess work. In view of this, I will assess the income of deceased Babu Lal Katiyar, who was an Advocate and was practicing in Karkardooma Court to be Rs.12,000/- per month i.e. Rs.1,44,000/- per annum.
10. As far as addition towards future prospects is concerned, this Court in HDFC ERGO General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Lalta Devi & Ors., MAC. APP. 189/2014 decided on 12.01.2015 dealt with this aspect in great detail. Paras 9 to 21 of the report in Lalta Devi are extracted hereunder:-
“9. The learned counsel for the Claimants has referred to a three Judge Bench decision of the Supreme Court in Rajesh & Ors. v. Rajbir Singh & Ors., (2013) 9 SCC 54 to contend that the future prospects have to be added in all cases where a person is getting fixed wages or is a seasonal employee or is a student.
10. It is urged by the learned counsel for the Claimants that the law laid down in Sarla Verma (Smt.) & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121 was extended
