Shri Ram General Insurance Company Ltd v. Kamla Devi And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH FAO No. 584 of 2015 Date of decision : 17.03.2015 Shri Ram General Insurance Company Limited ...........Appellant vs Kamla Devi & others ...........Respondents Coram :

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh Present :

Mr. Rajbir Singh, Advocate for Mr., Sanjeev Goyal, Advocate for the appellant.

Kuldip Singh, J. (Oral) In this case Kailash Chand, aged about 34 years, who was working as Driver, while driving Alto Car bearing registration No. HP-52-A6667 met with an accident with a truck bearing No. HR-37-C-0339 and died. The Tribunal awarded a sum of ` 13,77,000/- to legal heirs of Kailash Chand deceased. The Tribunal treated the income of the deceased to be ` 6,000/- per month and applied the multiplier of 16 and further awarded loss of future prospectus at the rate of 50% of the annual income as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh and others vs. Rajbir Singh and others, 2013 ACJ 1403 (SC). Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has assailed the award mainly on two grounds (i) assessment of the income of deceased on higher side and (ii) grant of future prospectus.

It has been argued that the deceased was working in Himachal Pradesh and where the wages of unskilled worker are 4900/- per month. I am of the view that a driver does not only get the salary but normally he gets additional income as daily charges or night charges etc., therefore, assessing the income of the deceased to be 72,000/- + 36,000/- = `1,08,000/- per annum cannot be called improper.

SATYAWAN 2015.03.20 10:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh

FAO No. 584 of 2015 -2So far as the future prospectus are concerned, in Rajesh and others case (supra) the Apex Court had ruled that even for a selfemployed person an addition of 50% of his income is to be made to his actual income towards future prospectus. Learned counsel argued that the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 2.7.2014 in Special Leave to Appeal (C). CC No.(s) 8058 of 2014 titled National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pushpa & Others, referred the matter to the Larger Bench. However, the future prospectus law as laid down in the Rajbir's case (supra) has not been set aside. I am of the view that the reasoning given in Rajbir's case (supra) is near reality. The ruling is to be followed unless the same is set aside by the Apex Court.

Learned counsel further argued that verdict of Reshma Kumari & others vs. Madan Mohan & another, 2013(2) RCR Civil 660 case should be followed. I am of the view that in Rajbir's case (supra), the law laid down earlier was further elaborated and, therefore, the same is to be followed.

It being so, no interference with the award passed by the learned Tribunal is called for. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. (Kuldip Singh) Judge 17.03.2015 sp SATYAWAN 2015.03.20 10:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh