Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Harender Singh & Ors.

1. This appeal is filed seeking to impugn the award dated 29.05.2013. The brief facts are that the deceased on 29.07.2011 was going on a motorcycle with his friend. When they reached opposite CISF Camp, Noida, the motorcycle was hit by a truck said to be driven in a rash and negligent manner. On account of the accident, the deceased expired. The tribunal noted that the deceased was 28 years old and had completed BDS from CCS University, Meerut and was a practising Dentist.

2. The issue is around the compensation awarded. The tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.17,55,000/- for loss of dependency; Rs.25,000/- towards loss of love and affection; Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate; and Rs.25,000/towards funeral expenses – being a total sum of Rs.18,15,000/-.

3. The tribunal, based on the judgment of this High Court, assessed the 2014:DHC:4537 income of the deceased, taking into account that he is practising as Dentist, at Rs.15,000/- per month and assessed the loss of dependency accordingly. Half of the income was deducted as personal and living expenses as the deceased was a bachelor. Multiplier of 13 was used keeping in mind the age of the mother of the deceased i.e.48 years.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the tribunal has erred in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per month. It is further urged that the tribunal has after having assessed the income at Rs.15,000/- per month, wrongly enhanced the same by 50% increase towards future prospects.

5. As far as the assessment of income at Rs.15,000/- is concerned, reference may be had to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of V.Mekala vs M.Malathi & Anr. 2014 ACJ 1441, Ashvinbhai Jayantilal Modi vs Ramkaran Ramchandra, 2014(11) SCALE 427 and V.Selvaraj & Anr. vs Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr., SLP(C) No.(s) 39510/2013.

6. In the light of the above, there can be no reason to interfere with findings of the tribunal in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per month.

7. As far as the issue of future prospect is concerned 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.

8. 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 a student who was studying in Class XI aged 16 years had awarded 50% increase for future prospects.

9. 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. (2009) 6 SCC 121, Reshma Kumari & Ors. vs. Madan Mohan & Anr. 2013 ACJ 1253 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).

10. I may further note that this court in MAC APP.761/2012 Rakesh and Ors. vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. vide judgment dated 02.04.2014 had in a 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.

11. In view of the above, there are no reasons to differ with the reasoning of the award granting 50% increase on account of future prospects. Accordingly, there is no error in the award. The contention of the appellant lacks merits. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

12. The interim order stands vacated. The Statutory amount, if any, paid by the appellant, be refunded. (JAYANT NATH, J.) JUDGE SEPTEMBER 09, 2014 raj