Delhi High Court
Panna Lal & Ors. vs Anjit Kumar Jha & Ors. on 22 December, 2011
Author: G.P. Mittal
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 22nd December, 2011
+ MAC APP. 106/2011
PANNA LAL & ORS. ...... Appellants
Through: Mr. Manish Maini, Advocate.
Versus
ANJIT KUMAR JHA & ORS. ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. L.K.Tyagi, Advocate for R-3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
JUDGMENT
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
1. The Appellant claims enhancement of compensation for the
death of Smt. Tripta who was re-employed as a teacher in the
MCD. The deceased at the time of the accident was getting a
salary of Rs.28,955/- including ` 2160/- per month towards
transport allowance. In addition, the deceased Smt. Tripta was
also getting a pension of ` 6990/- per month.
2. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Tribunal) by the
impugned award dated 08.10.2010 held that only Appellant
No.3 Ms. Ritu was dependant on the deceased as she was
handicapped. The husband and the son were not financially
dependants. The Tribunal, therefore, took the deceased's net
salary as ` 26,795/-, deducted 50% towards personal expenses
of the deceased and computed loss of dependency for the period
of 17 months of re-employment as ` 2,27,800/-. Thereafter, the
Tribunal went on to add a sum of ` 2,52,000/- towards the loss
of household services, which would have been rendered by the
deceased after her retirement. A total compensation of `
5,42,300/- was awarded.
3. At the time of hearing of the Appeal a short submission has
been made by the learned counsel for the Appellants. It is
submitted that the deceased had worked as a teacher all her life.
Deceased was re-employed and would not have spent half of the
amount which she would be earning towards her personal
expenses, particularly when she had a handicapped daughter
(Appellant No.3).
4. On the other hand, it is urged by the learned counsel for
respondent No.3 Bharti Axa General Insurance Company
Limited that while computing the loss of income, no provision
was made for payment of the income tax.
5. I agree with the learned counsel for the Appellants that in the
circumstances when the deceased was getting salary of `
26,795/- per month apart from transport allowance of ` 2160/-
per month and a pension of about ` 7,000/- she would not spent
50% of her income towards her personal living expenses, in
view of the fact that the deceased had to look after a
handicapped daughter. The mother would save the maximum
amount of her income and spend it on her handicapped child. In
the circumstances of the case, I am of the view that one-third of
the amount ought to have been deducted towards her personal
expenditure.
6. The deceased would have got a total salary of ` 4,55,515/- for
17 months for which she was still to work and was liable to pay
income tax.
7. The income tax for the assessment year 2010-11 on an income
of ` 4,55,515/- would be about 15,000/- though the deceased
was alive till 7th August, i.e. for a period of four months only in
the AY-2010-11. Considering all this, the liability of tax for
eight months in the year 2010-11 and for nine months in the
next year would be about ` 25,000/-.
8. The loss of income for 17 months minus income tax of `
25,000/- comes to ` 4,30,000/-. If one-third is deducted towards
personal expenses, the loss of dependency comes to `
2,87,010/- instead of ` 2,27,800/-.
9. The compensation is enhanced by ` 60,000/- which shall carry
interest @ 7.5% per annum from 1.12.2010 till the date of
payment.
10. Respondent No.3 Insurance Company is directed to deposit the
enhanced amount along with the interest within six weeks with
Registrar General of this Court. On deposit the entire amount
shall be converted into FDR for a period of five years in the
name of Appellant No.3. Appellant No.3 shall be entitled to be
paid quarterly interest till the date of maturity of the FDR.
11. The Appeal is allowed in above terms.
12. Pending application stands disposed of.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
DECEMBER 22, 2011
vk
