Delhi High Court
New India Assurance Co Ltd vs Sangeeta Asthana & Ors on 23 April, 2012
Author: G.P. Mittal
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 23rd April, 2012
+ MAC.APP. 15/2010
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD ..... Appellant
Through: Ms. Gunjan Chowksey Advocate for
Mr. Kanwal Chaudhary, Advocate
versus
SANGEETA ASTHANA & ORS..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Biswajit Das, Advocate with
Ms. Bhavana Jha, Advocate
+ MAC.APP. 1144/2011
RITU ASTHANA ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Biswajit Das, Advocate with
Ms. Bhavana Jha, Advocate
versus
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD & ORS..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Gunjan Chowksey Advocate for
Mr. Kanwal Chaudhary, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
JUDGMENT
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
1. MAC APP.15/2010 and MAC APP.1144/2011 are two Cross
Appeals arising out of the judgment dated 03.12.2009 passed
by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal)
in respect of the death of Devashish Asthana, who died in a
motor accident which occurred on 01.01.2004.
2. A Claim Petition was initially filed by the parents of the
deceased concealing that the deceased was married to
Respondent No.8 Smt. Ritu Asthana. Smt. Ritu Asthana was
later on impleaded as Respondent No.8. The Claims Tribunal by
the impugned judgment accepted the deceased's salary to be
`12,000/- per month on the basis of the Salary Certificate Ex.
PW-1/12, added 50% towards future prospects, deducted one-
half towards personal and living expenses; as according to the
Claims Tribunal, the deceased was residing separately from his
mother and perhaps there were strained relations between the
deceased and the mother.
3. The Claims Tribunal while awarding a compensation of `
19,79,000/- held that 70% of the compensation shall be payable
to Respondent No.8 (in MAC APP.15/2010) and 30% to the
mother i.e. the First Respondent.
4. The parties shall be referred to by their nomenclature as
mentioned in MAC APP.15/2010.
5. MAC APP.15/2010 has been filed by the New India Assurance
Company Limited for reduction of compensation, whereas
MAC APP.1144/2010 has been filed by the Respondent No.8,
the deceased's widow for enhancement of compensation.
6. The only ground set up by the Appellant is that deduction
towards conveyance allowance, LTA and medical, etc. ought to
have been taken from the salary of the deceased and thus, the
loss of dependency should have been granted after deducting
income tax on the net income of `9,800/-.
7. On the other hand, it is urged on behalf of Respondent No.8 that
the deceased was just at the threshold of his career, had
obtained diploma in Software from NIIT, and as the normal life
expectancy was 75 years his monthly income would have
increased manifold by the time he would have died. Thus, it is
urged that a compensation of `35 lacs must be awarded to
Respondent No.8.
8. No Appeal has been filed by Sangeeta Asthana, the deceased's
mother.
9. It is established on record that the deceased left behind a
widow, a mother and a younger son aged 20 years. Manish
Asthana, the deceased's younger brother was not yet settled in
his life and would have taken a couple of years to settle.
Though, there was no reliable evidence that the deceased had
strained relations with his mother (the First Respondent), yet
even if the relations were strained, the parties could have
patched up their differences and thus there was no ground to
make deduction of one-half towards his personal and living
expenses instead of one-third when the number of dependents
are 2-3.
10. In fact, this Court by order dated 18.01.2010 in MAC
APP.15/2010 has increased the compensation from `19,79,000/-
to `21,16,800/- at the interim stage.
11. As per Sarla Verma (Smt.) & Ors. v. Delhi Transport
Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121 as a thumb rule 50%
addition in future prospects is made when the deceased is aged
upto 40 years. The Claims Tribunal also followed the same
principle regarding the addition.
12. I do not find any reason to deviate from the principle of
granting 50% increase in the deceased's income considering
that he was in permanent employment in Times Internet
Limited.
13. At the same time it may be noticed that there was a payment of
` 15,400/- per annum made towards the conveyance allowance
which is in the nature of payment incidental to employment.
The same should not have been included in the deceased's
income for the purpose of computation of loss of dependency.
The other allowances i.e. medical allowance, LTA, etc. were for
the benefit of the family and there is no reason to ignore the
same for computation of Loss of Dependency.
14. As per Sarla Verma (supra) it is also well settled that amount
payable towards the income tax has to be deducted from the
actual income to arrive at the income for computation of Loss of
Dependency.
15. The loss of dependency would thus come to `20,44,800/-
(1,44,000/- - 15,400/- (conveyance) = 1,28,600/- - 15,000/-
(income tax) = 1,13,600/- + 50% x 2/3 x 18).
16. On adding notional sum of `60,000/- (`30,000/- towards Loss
of Love & Affection, `10,000/- each towards Loss to Estate,
Loss of Consortium and Funeral Expenses) as granted by the
Claims Tribunal, the overall compensation comes to
`21,04,800/-.
17. By an interim order dated 18.01.2010 this Court had held that
compensation payable would come to `21,16,800/-. Since there
is a difference of just `12,000/- I would hold held that a
compensation of `21,16,800/- is a just and reasonable
compensation.
18. The compensation is thus enhanced from `19,79,000/- to `
21,16,800/- which shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from
the date of filing of the Petition till the date of payment.
19. In view of the observations made above, 70% of the
compensation shall be payable to Respondent No.8. 25% to
Respondent No.1 and 5% to Respondent No.2.
20. MAC APP.15/2010 filed by the Insurance Company and MAC
APP.1144/2011 filed by Ritu Asthana are disposed of in above
terms.
21. Pending applications also stand disposed of.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
APRIL 23, 2012
vk
