Delhi High Court
National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Sudesh & Ors. on 27 April, 2012
Author: J.R. Midha
R-7 (Part-III)
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ MAC.APP.No.734/2005 and CM No.12501/2005
% Reserve on : 13th April, 2012
Date of decision : 27th April, 2012
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. ..... Appellant
Through : Mr. Pradeep Gaur and
Mr. Shashank Sharma, Advs.
versus
SUDESH & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through : None.
CORAM :-
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA
JUDGMENT
1. The appellant has challenged the award of the Claims
Tribunal whereby compensation of `17,31,000/- has been
awarded to claimants/respondents No.1 to 6. The appellant
seeks reduction of the award amount.
2. The accident dated 12th November, 2002 resulted in the
death of Krishan Lal Arora. The deceased was aged 49 years
at the time of the accident and was survived by his widow, two
sons, one daughter and parents who filed the claim petition
before the Claims Tribunal. The deceased was working as a
Meter Reading Inspector with the BSES Rajdhani Power Limited
drawing a salary of `11,074/- per month. The Claims Tribunal
added 50% towards his future prospects, deducted 1/3rd
towards his personal expenses and applied the multiplier of 13
to compute the loss of dependency at `17,16,000/-. The
Claims Tribunal has awarded `15,000/- towards funeral
expenses. The total compensation awarded is `17,31,000/-.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant has urged at the
time of hearing of this appeal that the future prospects should
not have been taken into consideration and in any view of the
matter, the future prospects could not have been more than
30% in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the
case of Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation,
(2009) 6 SCC 121.
4. There is merit in the submission of learned counsel for
the appellant. In the case of Sarla Verma (Supra), the
Supreme Court has held that the future prospects in respect of
person aged between 40-50 years should be taken as 30%.
The future prospects in respect of the deceased are, therefore,
reduced from 50% to 30%.
5. The learned counsel further submits that the Claims
Tribunal has not deducted personal allowances and Income
Tax while computing the income of the deceased. No Income
Tax is payable for the relevant year if the highest permissible
deductions and investments are taken into account. However,
the washing allowance of `35/- being a personal expenditure is
deducted from the salary of the deceased. The income of the
deceased after the aforesaid deduction is taken as `11,039/-.
6. The deceased has left behind six legal representatives
and according to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the
case of Sarla Verma (Supra), the personal expenses of 1/4th
should have been deducted whereas the Claims Tribunal has
deducted 1/3rd. In that view of the matter, the personal
expenses are reduced from 1/3rd to 1/4th.
7. The Claims Tribunal has not awarded any compensation
for loss of consortium, loss of love and affection and loss of
estate. `10,000/- is awarded towards loss of consortium and
`10,000/- towards loss of estate. `16,968/- is awarded towards
loss of love and affection.
8. Taking the income of the deceased to be `11,039/-,
adding 30% towards future prospects, deducting 1/4th towards
his personal expenses and applying the multiplier of 13, the
loss of dependency is computed to be `16,79,032/-. The
claimants are thus entitled to a total compensation of
`17,31,000/- as per the break-up given hereinbelow:-:-
Loss of dependency : `16,79,032/-
Compensation towards funeral : `15,000/-
expenses
Compensation towards loss of : `10,000/-
consortium
Compensation towards loss of : `16,968/-
love and affection
Compensation towards loss of : `10,000/-
estate
Total : `17,31,000/-
9. For the reasons as aforesaid, there is no ground for
reduction of the award amount. The amount awarded by the
Claims Tribunal is upheld. The appeal is dismissed.
10. The appellant has deposited the entire award amount with
the Claims Tribunal out of which 75% amount has been released
to the claimants and the remaining amount is lying with the
Claims Tribunal in terms of the order dated 28th September, 2005.
Let the remaining award amount be released to the claimants in
terms of the award.
11. The statutory amount deposited by the appellant be
refunded to the appellant.
12. The LCR be sent back forthwith.
13. Copy of this judgment be sent to the
claimants/respondents No.1 to 6 as well as their counsel.
J.R. MIDHA, J
APRIL 27, 2012
