Delhi High Court
National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Santosh Tirkey And Ors. on 24 February, 2010
Author: J.R. Midha
34
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ MAC.APP.No.96/2009
Date of Decision: 24th February, 2010
%
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. ..... Appellant
Through Mr. L.K. Tyagi, Advocate.
versus
SANTOSH TIRKEY AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Sunil Kumar Verma, Adv.
for R-1 to 4.
CORAM :-
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA
1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may YES
be allowed to see the Judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? YES
3. Whether the judgment should be YES
reported in the Digest?
JUDGMENT (Oral)
1. The appellants have challenged the award of the
learned Tribunal whereby compensation of Rs.27,38,000/-
has been awarded to claimants/respondents No.1 to 4.
2. The accident dated 26th August, 2002 resulted in the
death of Ignatius Tirkey. The deceased was survived by her
husband and three minor children who filed the claim
petition before the learned Tribunal.
3. The deceased was aged about 43 years at the time of
the accident and was working as a Nurse with Dr. Ram
Manohar Lohia Hospital. The deceased was drawing a salary
of Rs.15,378/- at the time of the accident. The learned
Tribunal deducted Rs.2,378/- towards the allowances and
took the income of the deceased as Rs.13,000/- per month.
The average of Rs.13,000/- and Rs.32,500/- was taken
towards the future prospects, 1/3rd was deducted towards the
personal expenses and the multiplier of 15 was applied to
compute the loss of dependency at Rs. 27,18,000/-. The
learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.20,000/- towards loss of
love and affection and funeral expenses.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant has urged the
following grounds at the time of hearing of this appeal:-
(i) The multiplier be reduced from 15 to 14.
(ii) The future prospects be computed by adding 30%
of the salary of the deceased.
5. The learned counsel for claimants/respondents No.1
to 4 has made following submissions at the time of hearing
of this appeal:-
(i) The deduction of allowances of Rs.1,850/ be set
aside.
(ii) The personal expenses of the deceased be
reduced from 1/3rd to 1/4th.
(iii) The compensation be awarded for loss of estate.
(iv) The compensation be awarded for loss of
consortium.
(v) The interest be awarded from the date of the
institution of the claim petition on 27th September,
2002.
6. The salary of the deceased at the time of the accident
as per salary certificate Ex.PW-1/1 and Pay Bill Ex.PW-1/2
was Rs.15,378/-. The deduction of Rs.150/- towards washing
allowance and Rs.100/- towards transport allowance is
justified but there is no justification of deduction of other
allowances of Rs.1,850/-. The deduction of Rs.1,850/- is
therefore set aside. The salary of deceased for computation
of loss of dependency is taken to be Rs.15,128/- [Rs.15378-
(Rs.150 + Rs.100)].
7. The learned Tribunal has computed the future
prospects by taking the average of Rs.13,000/- and
Rs.32500/-, which is not permissible. The deceased was aged
43 years at the time of the accident and the future prospects
according to the judgment of Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi
Transport Corporation, 2009 (6) Scale 129 is taken as
30% and Rs.4,538.40 (30% of Rs.15,128/-) is added towards
future prospects. The income of the deceased for
computation of income is taken to be Rs.19,666.40
(Rs.15,128 + Rs.4,538.40).
8. The learned Tribunal has deducted 1/3rd towards
personal expenses. The appropriate deduction towards
personal expenses of the deceased according to the
judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla
Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation (Supra) is 1/4th.
The personal expenses of the deceased are, therefore,
reduced from 1/3rd to 1/4th.
9. The learned Tribunal has applied the multiplier of 15.
However, the appropriate multiplier according to the
judgment of Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport
Corporation (Supra) is 14. The multiplier is therefore
reduced from 15 to 14.
10. Taking the income of the deceased to be Rs.19,666.40,
deducting 1/4th towards personal expenses and applying the
multiplier of 14, the loss of dependency is computed to be
Rs.24,77,966.4 (19,666.4 x 3/4 x 14 x 12).
11. The learned Tribunal has not awarded for
compensation towards loss of consortium and loss of estate.
Rs.10,000/- is awarded towards loss of consortium and
Rs.10,000/- is awarded towards loss of estate.
12. The claimants are entitled to total compensation of
Rs.25,17,966.4 (Rs.24,77,966.4 + Rs.20,000 + Rs.10,000 +
Rs.10,000).
13. The learned Tribunal has awarded interest @ 7.5% from
the date of filing of the claim petition till realization. The
claim was instituted on 27th September, 2002. However, the
Claims Tribunal inadvertently mentioned the date of
institution as 9th March, 2007 in the impugned award. The
date of institution in the impugned award is corrected as 27 th
September, 2002 and it is held that the claimants shall be
entitled to interest from 27th September, 2002 till realization.
14. The appeal is partially allowed and the award amount
is reduced from Rs.27,38,000/- to Rs.25,17,966.40 along with
interest at the rate of 7.5% from the date of filing of the
claim petition i.e. 27th September, 2002 till the date of
realization.
15. The appellant has deposited the entire award amount
with the Claims Tribunal, in terms of order dated 10 th
February, 2009 and part of the said amount has already been
released to the claimants. The remaining amount is lying in
fixed deposit and the original fixed deposit receipt is lying
with the Claims Tribunal.
16. The learned counsel for claimants/respondents No.1
to 4 submits that the appellant would be required to deposit
some more money.
17. Let both the parties file their respective Statements of
Account before this Court when the appropriate order for
deposit and release of the amount shall be passed.
18. List for directions on 9th April, 2010.
19. Copy of this order be given 'Dasti' to learned counsel
for both the parties under signature of Court Master.
J.R. MIDHA, J
FEBRUARY 24, 2010/HL
