Back
2017 Supreme(Del) 4146
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
R.K. GAUBA, J.
Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Deep Chand & Ors. - Respondents
MAC.APP. 170 of 2016 and CM 6579 of 2016
Decided On : 11-09-2017
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Priyadarsi Acharya, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. M.K. Sharma, Adv.
The main legal point established is that future prospects should not be added for 'self-employed' individuals or those on a 'fixed salary', and the appropriate multiplier should be applied for loss of dependency.
Headnote:
Compensation - Motor Vehicle Accident - Future Prospects - Dependency - Loss of Love and Affection - Funeral Expenses - Loss to Estate
Fact of the Case:
Vikas Kumar, 19 years old, died in a motor vehicular accident due to negligent driving of a truck. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.16,47,924, which the insurer appealed against, questioning the computation of future prospects and the multiplier used.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that future prospects should not be added in cases of 'self-employed' or those on a 'fixed salary'. Since there was no proof of regular employment, the element of future prospects was excluded. The court also recomputed the loss of dependency using the appropriate multiplier and adjusted the awards under non-pecuniary heads of damages based on relevant rulings.
Issues: The issues revolved around the computation of compensation, specifically regarding future prospects and the appropriate multiplier to be used for loss of dependency.
Ratio Decidendi: The court followed the view that future prospects should not be added for 'self-employed' individuals or those on a 'fixed salary', and applied the appropriate multiplier for loss of dependency. The court also adjusted the awards under non-pecuniary heads of damages based on relevant rulings.
Final Decision: The court modified the award to Rs.8,97,000 and directed the insurer to deposit the entire amount with interest, allowing 50% to be released to the claimants. The appeal and pending application were disposed of accordingly.
1. Vikas Kumar, 19 years old, a bachelor, son of the first and second respondents (claimants), died due to the injuries suffered on account of a motor vehicular accident that occurred on 19.03.2014 at about 11.30 p.m. due to the negligent driving of a truck bearing registration no.UP-17B-3511 (truck), admittedly insured against third party risk with the appellant/insurance company. The claimants instituted accident claim case (case no.754/2014) on 10.07.2014 seeking compensation impleading, besides the driver-cum-owner of the truck, its insurer (i.e. the appellant).
2. After inquiry, by judgment dated 22.12.2015, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Tribunal), awarded compensation in the sum of Rs.16,47,924/- and directed the insurer to pay with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. The said amount includes Rs.15,87,924/- towards loss of dependency calculated on the basis of minimum wages (Rs.9,802/-) on which 50% was added towards future prospects of increase and the multiplier of 18 applied taking the age of the deceased as the benchmark after deduction of 50% towards personal and living expenses.
3. The insurer, by the appeal at hand, questions the aforementioned computation on the grounds that the future prospects could not have been added and that the multiplier should have been chosen as per the age of the mother.
4. 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.
5. Against the above backdrop, by judgment dated 22.01.2016 passed in MAC Appeal No. 956/2012 (Sunil Kumar v. Pyar Mohd.), 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.
6. Since there was no formal proof of regular employment, leave alone the possibility of future prospects of increase, such element will have been kept out.
7. As per the copy of the election identity card of the second respondent (mother), submitted at the hearing today, her age as on 01.01.2015 was 52 years. In this view, on the relevant date of accident, she would be 51 years old and, thus, the multiplier of 11 would apply. The loss of dependency is recomputed as [Rs.9802 / 2 x 12 x 11] Rs.6,46,932/-, rounded off to Rs.6,47,000/- (Rupees Six lakh and forty seven thousand only).
8. It is, however, noted that the tribunal has not properly considered the awards under the non-pecuniary heads of damages, Rs.25,000/- each towards the head of loss of love and affection and funeral expenses and Rs.10,000/- towards loss to estate being inadequate. Having regard to the date of the accident, following the ruling in Shriram General Insurance Co Ltd v. Usha, MAC.APP. 160/2015, decided on 05.05.2016, award of Rs.1,50,000/- towards loss of love and affection and Rs.50,000/- each towards loss of funeral expenses and loss to estate are added.
9. This would mean the total compensation in the case would come to [Rs.6,47,000/- + 1,50,000/- + Rs.50,000/- + Rs.50,000/-] Rs.8,97,000/-. (Rupees Eight lakh and ninety seven thousand). The award is modifi
