Madhu Gupta vs Naresh Kumar & Ors.
2011 Latest Caselaw 4722 Del

*             THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                            MAC APPEAL No.453-55/2006

                                              Reserved on: 19.09.2011
                                            Pronounced on: 23.09.2011

MADHU GUPTA                                              ...... Appellant

                             Through:   Nemo

                                   Versus

NARESH KUMAR & ORS.                                  ...... Respondents

                             Through:   Nemo

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA

1.     Whether Reporters of local papers may be
       allowed to see the judgment?                 No
2.     To be referred to the Reporter or not ?      No
3.     Whether the judgment should be reported
       in the Digest ?                              No

M.L. MEHTA, J.

1. This is an appeal against the impugned award dated 20.03.2006

passed by learned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal("the Tribunal"for

short) which came to be passed on the Claim Petition No.331/01 of the

appellants/claimants seeking compensation on account of death of Shri

Dinesh Kumar Gupta,husband of appellant Mrs.Madhu Gupta and father

of Master Rituraj and Master Sajal.On 8.9.11,the deceased was driving

his scooter when he was hit by a bus bearing registration number DL-

1PA-5623 being driven by its driver Naresh Kumar allegedly in a rash

and negligent manner and at a very high speed.The deceased received

the grievous injuries and was removed to Army Hospital where he

succumbed to the injuries. He was stated to be aged 36 years and was

working as Managing Director in Sajal Computers (P) Ltd. and earning

`15,000/- per month. The Tribunal awarded compensation of

`18,80,000/- which was made up of `18,14,000/- towards loss of

dependency of the claimants, `30,000/- on account of loss of love and

affection, `30,000/- on account of loss of consortium and `5,000/-

towards funeral expenses. Out of the awarded sum, `8,80,000/- was

ordered to be payable to appellant Mrs. Madhu Gupta and `5 lac each to

the minor children of the deceased. The present appeal has been filed

by the appellant/claimants seeking enhancement of the compensation.

It is averred that the Tribunal has erred in assessing the monthly

dependency of the appellants/ claimants to the tune of `9450/- and

after deducting `6075/- as towards future tax liability and 1/3rd on

account of his personal living expenses. It is averred that the Tribunal

ought to have assessed the monthly dependency to the tune of

`15,000/-. It is also averred that the Tribunal has also erred in deducting

`1500/- as conveyance allowance. The multiplier of 16 as applied by the

Tribunal was also stated be on lower side inasmuch as the deceased

being 36 years of age, would have worked for at least another 29 years.

The awarding of compensation of `30,000/- each on account of loss of

love and affection and loss of consortium are also alleged to be on

lower side.

2. The matter was listed for final hearing on 19.09.2011 when

nobody appeared on behalf of the parties and consequently the matter

was reserved for judgment with liberty to the parties to file synopsis of

their arguments. None has chosen to file any synopsis of their

arguments. I have perused the record including the impugned award.

3. There was no dispute with regard to the age of the deceased

being 36 years and the LRs left behind by the deceased being his wife

and two minor sons as his only legal representatives. It was also a

matter of record that the deceased was working as Managing Director

of M/s Sajal Computers (P) Ltd and was drawing a salary of `15,000/-

per month. Referring to the statement of Jaideep Lal, Chartered

Accountant of M/s Sajal Computers, the learned Tribunal recorded the

basic salary of the deceased to be `9,000/- per month which was

exclusive of HRA of 4500/- per month and `1500/- on account of

conveyance allowance. The total salary of `15,000/- was made of his

basic salary as well as aforesaid perquisites. Relying upon judgment of

Apex Court in the case of Sarla Dixit v Balwant Yadav [AIR 1996 SC

1272] , the learned Tribunal took into account the future prospects of

the deceased in advancement of life and career into consideration and

thereby arrived at average monthly income of the deceased by adding

the basic salary of `9000/- and HRA of `4500/- to double of this amount

i.e. `27000/- and dividing the same by 2. In this manner, the Tribunal

calculated the average monthly income of the deceased as `20250/- per

month (13500+27000 divided by 2). Since the deceased was in the

higher slab of income tax, the mandatory deduction of 30% i.e. `6075/-

was deducted on account of income tax thereby leaving a balance of

`14175/- per month as the net average monthly income of the

deceased. Out of this, 1/3rd (`4725/-) was deducted on account of

personal living expenses and in this way, the loss of income of the

claimants was arrived at `9450/- per month [14175-4725]. I do not see

any illegality or impropriety in the manner of calculating the monthly

dependency loss of the claimants by the learned Tribunal. The Apex

Court judgment in Sarla Verma and Others v Delhi Transport

Corporation and Another [2009 INDLAW SC 488] held that in case of

income which is in the taxable range, the words „actual salary‟ was to

be read as „actual salary less income tax‟ and thus there does not

appear to be any infirmity in the Tribunal making a deduction of 30% of

the annual income towards income tax. Though it could not be said with

certainty that the deceased was in a permanent job and thus had a

future prospects of increase of income, but the Tribunal relying upon

the decision of Apex Court in Sarla Dixit (supra) has arrived at the

average monthly income in the manner as noted above. Though as per

Sarla Verma (supa), 50% of the annual salary was to be added to

annual salary income of the deceased towards future prospects if the

deceased had a permanent job, I do not intend to interfere with the

discretion exercised by the learned Tribunal in arriving at the average

annual income of the deceased in the manner as indicated above.

Further as per the said judgment of Sarla Verma (supra) since the

deceased had left behind 3 legal representatives/ dependents, the

Tribunal rightly deducted 1/3rd of his income towards his personal and

living expenses. The application of multiplier of 16 by the learned

Tribunal was also strictly in consonance with the law laid down in Sarla

Verma‟s case (supra). The Tribunal has adopted very just and

appropriate method in arriving at loss of dependency of the claimants.

He has also taken a very just and reasonable approach in awarding

compensation of `30,000/- each on account of loss of love and affection

and loss of consortium. Likewise, there is also no impropriety in

awarding compensation of `5,000/- towards funeral expenses.

4. In view of my above discussion, I do not find any illegality or

perversity in the impugned award. The appeal being without merit is

hereby dismissed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there

shall be no orders as to costs.

M.L. MEHTA (JUDGE) September 23 , 2011 rd