Judgment:
$~5 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on:
11. h July, 2017 + MAC APPEAL5412015 and CM APPPL.12196/2015 (stay) NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Through: Mr. Amit Gaur, Advocate with Mr. Pradeep Gaur, Advocate ..... Appellant versus USHA DEVI & ORS. ......... RESPONDENTS
Through: Mr. Lallan Tiwari, Adv. for R-1 to R-5. Mr. Anil Kumar Sharma, Adv. for R-6. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA1 JUDGMENT (ORAL) Ramesh Paswan, aged 37 years old, died in a motor vehicular accident that occurred on 30.09.2011. The appellant insurance company is the insurer against third party risk in respect of truck No.HR-38C-6695 on account of whose negligent driving the accident was proved to have been caused, it being the subject matter of the accident claim case (MACT No.57/2012) taken out by first to fifth respondents (the claimants), they being the legal heirs of the deceased. The insurance company was directed to pay compensation in the sum of Rs.12,60,413/- with interest, by judgment dated 18.05.2015 of the MAC Appeal 541/2015 Page 1 of 4 tribunal, is in appeal submitting that the element of future prospects has been wrongly added to the dependency loss.
2. It is noted that though it was claimed by the claimants through PW-1 that the deceased was working with a private company, evidence in that regard was not convincing. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal adopted the minimum wages @ Rs.4965/- per month, and added 50% as future prospects to arrive at dependency loss of Rs.10,05,413/-.
3. In the case reported as Sarla Verma & Ors. vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC121 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 SCC65 on account of divergence of views, as arising from the ruling in Rajesh & Ors. vs. Rajbir & Ors., (2013) 9 SCC54 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 SCC166 4. 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 12.1.2015, presently taking the decision in Reshma Kumari (Supra) as MAC Appeal 541/2015 Page 2 of 4 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.
5. Since there was no cogent evidence indicating regular income or progressive rise, the element of future prospects could not have been added.
6. In these circumstances, after deducting one-fourth towards personal and living expenses, and applying the multiplier of 15, correctly chosen by the tribunal, the dependency loss is re-calculated as (4965 x 3÷4 x 12 x
15) Rs.6,70,285/- rounded off to Rs.6,71,000/-. Adding the non-pecuniary damages (Rs.2,35,000/-), the total compensation comes to Rs.9,06,000/- (Rs.6,71,000/- + Rs.2,35,000/-). The award is modified accordingly. Needles to add, it shall carry interest as levied by the tribunal @ 9% per annum, and shall be apportioned in the ratio as determined by the tribunal.
7. By order dated 14.07.2015, the appellant insurance company had been directed to deposit the awarded amount with interest out of which 50% was allowed to be released and the balance to be kept in interest bearing fixed deposits in UCO Bank, Delhi High Court Branch, New Delhi.
8. Registrar General shall ensure that the balance in terms of modified award as above is released from the said fixed deposit MAC Appeal 541/2015 Page 3 of 4 receipt and the excess deposited is refunded with statutory deposit to the insurance company.
9. Appeal is disposed of in above terms. JULY11 2017 vk R.K.GAUBA, J.
MAC Appeal 541/2015 Page 4 of 4