MAC.APP./1137/2014 of RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs RAJWATI & ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Date of Decision:23.12.2014

+ MAC.APP. 1137/2014 and CM No.20603/2014 (stay)

RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD ..... Appellant Through Mr. A.K. Soni, Advocate. Through Mr. A.K. Soni, Advocate.

versus

RAJWATI & ORS

..... Respondents Through Mr. Navneet Goyal, Advocate for R-1 to 4/claimants to 4/claimants

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH

JAYANT NATH, J. (ORAL)

1.By the present appeal the appellant seeks to impugn the award dated 16.09.2014.

2.The brief facts are that on 11.09.2011 Sh.Naveen Dabas after closing the shop was going to his house along with Hemraj on his motorcycle. On the way at Bakhtawarpur Palla Raod, the motorcycle was hit by TATA 407 truck said to be driven at fast speed in rash and negligent manner.

The deceased succumbed to his injuries sustained in the accident.

3.The controversy revolves around the compensation awarded to the claimants. The Tribunal awarded the following compensation:- claimants. The Tribunal awarded the following compensation:-

MAC APP. 1137/2014 Page 1 of 5

4.A perusal of the award shows that the Tribunal noted the submission

of the claimants that the deceased was earning Rs.15,000/- per month as he was shopkeeper. As no documents were produced to prove the income of the deceased or to even show the deceased was running shop, the Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased based on minimum wages for matriculate on the date of the accident i.e. Rs.7,826/- per month. The Tribunal noted that the deceased was 25 years and five months old and is survived by his wife, one minor child and his parents. Accordingly, the Tribunal enhanced the income by 50% on account of future prospects. 1/4[th]deduction was made keeping into view that there were four dependents on account of personal expenses of the deceased. multiplier of 18 was used. Hence, loss of dependency was calculated at Rs.19,01,718/-. 5.Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the Tribunal has wrongly deducted 1/4[th] of the income of the deceased on account of personal expenses. He submits that the father would normally not be considered as dependent on the deceased and in the present case there are

MAC APP. 1137/2014 Page 2 of 5

only three dependents, namely, the widow, the minor child and the mother. Hence, he submits that 1/3[rd] is the appropriate deduction from the income towards personal expenses for the purpose of computing loss of dependency. He secondly submits that the assessed income on the basis of minimum wages should not be enhanced by 50% on account of future prospects.

6.A perusal of the evidence of PW-1 shows that in her affidavit by way of evidence she merely states that the deceased is survived by herself, her minor son, the mother and the father. There is no averment made stating that the father Sh.Angrej Singh was financially dependent upon the deceased. The Supreme Court in the case of Smt.Sarla Verma and Ors. vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121 held that father is likely to have his own income and would not be considered as dependent in the absence of the evidence to the contrary. Accordingly, in my opinion the deceased is survived by only three dependents and the deduction of 1/3[rd]has to be made from the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses.

7.Hence, the loss of dependency would now come to Rs.16,90,416/- [(Rs.7,826/- + 50% -1/3[rd]) x 12 x18].

8.As far as future prospects are concerned, I can take judicial note of the fact that minimum wages for matriculate in 2002 were Rs.3115.4/- P.M.

MAC APP. 1137/2014 Page 3 of 5

and in 2012 were Rs.8528/- P.M. It is obvious that the prescribed minimum wages have more than doubled in ten years.

9.In case of Rajesh & Ors. vs. Rajbir Singh & Ors. (2013) 9 SCC 54 the Supreme Court held that in the case of self employed or those on fixed wages, when the victim is below 40 years an addition of 50% should be made in the wages for the purpose of computing loss of future earnings.

10.In the case of Smt.Savita vs. Bindar Singh & Ors., (2014) 4 SCC 505, the Supreme Court was of the view that in the case of self employed or those engaged on fixed wages, 30% increase in income over period of time would be appropriate. In the case of V.Mekala vs. M.Malathi & Anr., 2014 ACJ 1441, the Supreme Court in the case of injury to student who was studying in Class XI aged 16 years had awarded 50% increase for future prospects.

11.Further, this court in the case of ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company vs. Angrej Singh & Ors. in MAC APP. 846/2011 in judgment dated 30.09.2013 had gone into this issue and had noted the judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of Smt.Sarla Verma and Ors. vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr., (supra),Reshma Kumari & Ors. vs. Madan Mohan & Anr.(2013) 9 SCC 65 and other judgments and concluded that the Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh & Ors. vs. Rajbir Singh & Ors.(supra) has held that the future prospects should be given to persons who are self-employed or on fixed wages. This court further held that there is no conflict in the legal position as set out in the judgments of Reshma Kumari & Ors. vs. Madan Mohan & Anr(supra) and Rajesh & Ors. vs. Rajbir Singh & Ors. (supra).

12.I may further note that this court in MAC APP.761/2012 Rakesh and

MAC APP. 1137/2014 Page 4 of 5

Ors. vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. vide judgment dated 02.04.2014 had in case where the deceased was 24 years old added 50% to the income towards future prospects for computing loss of dependency based on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh & Ors. vs. Rajbir Singh & Ors.(supra). Against the said judgment the appellant had filed an SLP before the Supreme Court. The said SLP No.5612/2014 was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 10.10.2014.

Accordingly, the enhancement of the assessed income by 50% by the

Tribunal is in order.

14.Accordingly, with the above modification in the award of the Tribunal, the Total compensation would now be payable as follows:-

The appellant may deposit the compensation amount as per this order

before the Tribunal within six weeks from today. The Tribunal may disburse

the compensation in the same proportion as directed in the award.

16.The appeal stands disposed of.

17.Pending application also stands disposed of.

18.Statutory amount, if any, be refunded.

DECEMBER 23, 2014/rb

JAYANT NATH, J

MAC APP. 1137/2014 Page 5 of 5