Full Text
Date of Decision: 8th September, 2017
SUKHPALI & ANR. ..... Appellants
Through: Mr. Nitinjaya Chaudhary, Advocate
Through: Mr. Sarfaraz Khan, Advocate for R-1.
Ms. Harsh Lata, Advocate for Ms. Shantha Devi Raman, Advocate for R-2.
JUDGMENT
1. On 21.09.2005, a motor vehicular accident took place due to negligent driving of motor vehicle bearing registration No.DL-1PB- 1113 (DTC bus), admittedly insured against third party risk with the second respondent for the period in question. It resulted in injuries being suffered by one Mohinder Singh and Narender Singh, the latter dying in the consequence. Two accident claim cases, including one (Suit No.417/2006) by the appellants herein, came to be instituted, the other being for and on behalf of Mohinder Singh (the injured person), both seeking compensation. The tribunal clubbed the two cases and 2017:DHC:5284 after inquiry, by judgment dated 19.09.2009, accepted the claim for compensation on the principle of fault liability. The finding about negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle has attained finality as it was not challenged. In the case of death of Narender Singh, presented by his parents (the appellants), he being a bachelor, the tribunal awarded total compensation in the sum of Rs.4,87,721/-, calculating it thus:-
┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ Sl.No. Head Amount in (Rs.) │ ├────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤ │ 1. Loss of dependency 4,22,721/- │ │ 2. Love and affection 50,000/- │ │ 3. Funeral Expenses 5,000/- │ │ 4. Loss of Estate 10,000/- │ │ Total 4,87,721/- │ │ 2. It appears the claimants had pleaded that the deceased was an │ └────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
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 12.1.2015, 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 regular employment in which the deceased was engaged, there being no other clear proof of progressive rise in income, the ITR referred to above being the solitary document submitted in this regard, no case is made out for any element of future prospects to be added.
7. Since the deceased was a bachelor, the tribunal correctly deducted fifty per cent (50%) towards personal and living expenses and having regard to the age of the mother, correctly applied the multiplier of 13.
8. The compensation on account of loss of dependency is, thus, recomputed as (1,02,660/- ÷ 2 x 13) Rs.6,67,290/- rounded off to Rs.6,68,000/-.
9. It is noted that the accident had occurred in 2005. Following the view taken in Rajesh & Ors. v. Rajbir Singh & Ors., (2013) 9 SCC 54 and Shashikala V. Gangalakshmamma (2015) 9 SCC 150, the award under the non-pecuniary heads are found to be inadequate. Therefore, the same are revised. The award of Rs.[1] lakh on account of loss of love and affection and Rs.25,000/- each towards loss of estate and funeral expense are added. Thus, the total compensation payable in the case is computed as (6,68,000/- + 1,50,000/-) Rs.8,18,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs & Eighteen Thousand Only).
10. The award is modified accordingly. Needless to add, it shall carry interest as levied by the tribunal.
11. The second respondent (insurer) is directed to satisfy the enhanced award by requisite deposit with the tribunal within thirty days, making it available to be released to the claimants in terms of the impugned award.
12. The appeal is disposed of in above terms.
13. Dasti. R.K.GAUBA, J. SEPTEMBER 08, 2017 vk