Delhi High Court
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance ... vs Kamlesh & Ors. on 22 December, 2011
Author: G.P. Mittal
$~37
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 22nd December, 2011
+ MAC.APP. NO.3/2011
BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD
..... Appellant
Through Mr. Atul Nanda, Sr. Advocate
with Ms. Rameeza Hakeem,
Mr. Rajat Brar, & Mr. Anvit
Jain, Advocates
versus
KAMLESH & ORS ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Anshuman Bal, Advocate
for Respondents No.1 to 5
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
JUDGMENT
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
1. The Appellant Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. seeks
reduction of compensation of ` 27,77,048/- awarded for death
of Constable Ravi Yadav who was aged 33 years on the date of
the accident.
2. The Tribunal by the impugned award, took the deceased's
salary as `12,278/- (as revised by the 6th Pay Commission)
added 50% towards future prospects on the basis of Sarla
Verma and Others V. Delhi Transport Corporation and
Another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 and selected the multiplier of 16 as
per the age of the deceased.
3. The contentions raised on behalf of the Appellant are:-
i) The retrospective increase in the pay should not have
been taken into consideration as the salary on the date of
the deceased's death was to be considered. Reliance is
placed in Sarla Verma V. DTC(supra) and Shyamwati
Sharma and Others V. Karam Singh and Others, (2010)
12 SCC 378.
ii) The Income Tax was required to be deducted.
CONTENTION NO.(i)
4. In Sarla Verma Vs. DTC(supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court
held that actual income of the deceased is to be taken into
consideration for the purpose of computing the loss of
dependency. It is not in dispute that the accident took place on
06.12.2007, whereas on account of implementation of the 6th
Pay Commission the salary of all the employees of Central
Government including Delhi Police were revised w.e.f.
01.01.2006 i.e. almost two years before the date of the accident.
Thus, applying Sarla Verma, the deceased's actual income
which was `12,278/- was to be considered to calculate the loss
of dependency. In Shyamwati Sharma and Others V. Karam
Singh and Others (supra), the accident took place on
25.12.1990 and projected salary after the date of death on the
assumption of the deceased's promotion and taking note of the
recommendation of the 5th Pay Commission w.e.f. 01.01.1996
was sought to be considered which is not the case in hand. The
5th Pay Commission was implemented on 01.01.1996 i.e. six
years after the date of accident in that case and, therefore, the
recommendation of 5th Pay Commission was wrongly
considered by the Tribunal in Shyamwati Sharma (supra). In
the instant case, the 6th Pay Commission was implemented
retrospectively w.e.f. 01.01.2006. Under the circumstances,
there is no manner of doubt that the deceased's salary `12,278/-
was to be considered for the purpose of calculation of
dependency. Sarla Verma (supra) and Shyamwati Sharma
(supra) do not help the Appellant, rather they support the case
of the Respondents/Claimants.
CONTENTION NO.(ii)
5. As far as liability of payment of Income Tax is concerned, it is
settled position of law that Income Tax has to be deducted from
the income for calculation of loss of dependency. The loss of
dependency thus works out as `12,278+50%=18417 X 12
=221004. The Income Tax on the said amount is ` 20,801/-.
Therefore, total income less Tax is ` 2,00,203/-. Now deducting
1/4th towards personal expenses from the total income, the
income comes to ` 1,50,153/-. Further, adding the multiplier of
16 according to the age of the deceased, the total loss of
dependency is computed as `24,02,448/-. So the total amount
of compensation is computed to be `25,27,448/- as against
`27,77,048/- awarded by the Tribunal. The excess amount shall
be refunded to the Appellant along with earned interest, if any,
on the said amount.
6. The Appeal is allowed in above terms.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
DECEMBER 22, 2011
pst
