Delhi High Court
Smt. Radha Menon & Ors. vs Sh. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. on 10 May, 2010
Author: Shiv Narayan Dhingra
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ F.A.O. No.131 of 1995 & C.M. Appl. No.11488 of 2008
% 10.05.2010
SMT. RADHA MENON & ORS. ...... Appellants
Through: None.
Versus
SH. AMARJEET SINGH & ORS. ......Respondents
Through: Mr. Pradeep Gaur, Advocate for R-4.
Reserved on: 29th April, 2010
Pronounced on: 10th May, 2010
JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
2. To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes.
3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest? Yes.
JUDGMENT
1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellants, who were claimants before
the Tribunal, seeking enhancement of the amount awarded by the Tribunal. No other
issue is involved in this appeal.
2. Brief facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this appeal are that Sh.
Unnikrishnan Menon died in a roadside accident on 21st November, 1985 due to negligent
driving of the bus in which he was travelling. At the time of his death, he was working as
Assistant Finance Manager with Engineering Projects India Limited. His salary
certificate brought on record shows that his gross salary at that time was Rs.3,210/- and
his take home salary was Rs.2,484/-. The Tribunal awarded a total compensation of
Rs.2,98,000/- on the basis of take home salary and awarded 12 per cent interest per
annum.
3. It is urged by the appellants that it is the gross salary which should have been
taken into account as it was not a case where some statutory deduction was being made
which could not be counted as income to the deceased. The income of the deceased was
below taxation limit. No income tax was being deducted. The other deductions like GPF,
CPF, House Building Loan, etc. were part of his income and the Tribunal wrongly
considered income after taking into account these deductions.
4. I agree with the plea raised by the appellants. While considering the
salary/income of a deceased, the only deduction to be made from his income is that of
income-tax, which goes to the State and does not accrue as income. Other deductions like
GPF, House Building Loan, FPS etc., accrue as income to the deceased; some part of
deductions are deferred income and some part like loan taken are advances being repaid.
5. I, therefore, find that the basis of calculations should have been Rs.3,210/-. Since
the deceased left behind a wife, one son and one daughter, 1/3rd of the income was to be
deducted towards his personal expenses. Therefore, out of Rs.3,210/-, Rs.1,070/- would
go towards his personal expenses and Rs.2,140/- shall remain for the dependents per
month. The annual dependency would be Rs.25,680/-. As per Sarla Varma & Ors. vs.
Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr.; (2009) 6 SCC 121, since deceased was 50 years of
age, future prospects could not be taken into account and a multiplier of 13 would be just
and rightful multiplier. Thus, the total compensation payable to the deceased would come
to Rs.3,33,840/-. I also consider that the claimants were entitled for Rs.5,000/- towards
funeral and last rite expenses, Rs.10,000/- for loss of consortium and Rs.5,000/- for loss
of estate.
6. I, therefore, allow the present appeal and modify the award to Rs.3,53,840/-. The
interest as awarded by the Tribunal was 12 per cent per annum. Looking into the fact that
accident took place in 1985, I consider it to be a reasonable rate of interest. The
insurance company is directed to pay balance amount to the appellants as per modified
award within 30 days.
SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA J.
MAY 10, 2010
'AA'
