Sulochana Devi & Ors. vs New India Assurance Company Limited & Ors

R.K.Gauba, J

Lalit Kumar, a bachelor, aged about 20 years, died in a motor vehicular accident that occurred on 27.05.2006, due to negligent driving of motor

vehicle described as Tata bus bearing registration No.DL-1PA-4228, admittedly insured against third party risk with the first respondent (insurer) for

the period in question. His parents (the appellants) filed accident claim case (Suit No.311/2006) seeking compensation. The tribunal held inquiry and,

by judgment dated 13.07.2010, upheld the claim for compensation holding the bus driver responsible for the accident. The compensation was awarded

in the total sum of Rs.6,55,780/- in favour of the claimants, it inclusive of Rs.5,85,780/- towards loss of dependency, Rs.50,000/- towards loss of love

and affection and Rs.10,000/- each towards funeral expenses and loss of estate . The insurer was directed to pay the same with interest @ 7.5% per

annum.

The claimants by the appeal at hand sought enhancement of the compensation.

The appeal was put in the list of regulars to come up on its own turn. When it is called out, there is no appearance on behalf of the appellants. The

matter has been considered with the assistance of the counsel for the insurer.

It is noted that the claimants have pleaded in the appeal that the deceased was earning Rs.10,000/- per month. This contention is not correct as the

last salary proved was vide salary slip (Ex.PW-6/4), the total emoluments being Rs.7510/- the same as taken by the tribunal. The reliance on the

recommendation for increment of Rs.2,500/- vide document (mark B) was considered by the tribunal and rejected for sound reasons. The said

recommendation, was not strictly proved by cogent evidence. Even otherwise, it might have resulted in increase in the salary in future. The plea of the

appellants that the income would have increased over the period thus cannot be accepted.

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 salaryâ€. 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.

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.

There was no clear proof of progressive rise in income of the deceased. In these circumstances, the element of future prospects could not have

been added.

It is, however, noted that the non-pecuniary damages awarded by the tribunal are on the lower side. Following the view taken in Rajesh & Ors. v.

Rajbir Singh & Ors., (2013) 9 SCC 54 and Shashikala V. Gangalakshmamma (2015) 9 SCC 150, compensation in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards

loss of love & affection and Rs.25,000/- each towards loss of estate and funeral expense are added. There shall, thus, be a net increase in the award

by a sum of Rs.(1,50,000 - 70,000) Rs. 80,000/-, raising the award to (6,55,780 + 80,000) Rs.7,35,780/- rounded off to Rs.7,36,000/- (Rupees Seven

Lakh Thirty Six Thousand Only).

The award is modified accordingly.

Following the consistent view taken by this Court, the rate of interest is increased to nine per cent (9%) per annum from the date of filing of the

petition till realization. [see judgment dated 22.02.2016 in MAC.APP. 165/2011 Oriental Insurance Co Ltd v. Sangeeta Devi & Ors.].

The entire enhanced portion with corresponding interest shall fall to the share of first appellant (mother) only. The insurance company (first

respondent) is directed to satisfy the enhanced award by requisite deposit with the tribunal within thirty days, making it available to be released to the

claimant/first appellant (mother) in the form of fixed deposit receipt to be taken out from a nationalized bank for a period of seven years with provision

to draw periodic interest.

The appeal stands disposed of in above terms.