Bajaj Allianz General Insurance ... vs Neeru Sain & Ors.
2012 Latest Caselaw 2844 Del

$~15

*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                        Date of decision: 30th April, 2012
+       MAC APP. No.994/2011

        BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
                                                      ..... Appellant
                             Through:    Mr. Joy Basu with Ms. Ruchi
                                         Bharda Jain, Advocates
                       Versus

        NEERU SAIN & ORS.                      ..... Respondents
                      Through:           Mr. Kundan Kumar Lal, Advocate
                                         for the Respondents No.1 to 4.

        CORAM:
        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL

                             JUDGMENT

G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)

1. The Appeal is for reduction of compensation of `23,83,916/-

awarded by the Claims Tribunal for the death of Veer Sain, who died in a motor accident which occurred on 19.08.2010.

2. The following contentions are raised on behalf of the Appellant:

(i) The deceased's widow was entitled to a pension of about `11,000/- per month and the same was liable to be deducted from the deceased's salary for the purpose of computing the loss of dependency.

(ii) The deceased was aged 53 years on the date of the accident. The Claims Tribunal erred in adopting a

multiplier of 9. Since the deceased was to retire in another seven years, multiplier of 7 should have been adopted.

(iii) The Claims Tribunal erred in not making the statutory deduction towards liability of Income Tax.

(iv) The compensation of `1 lakh awarded towards loss of love and affection is on the higher side, it needs to be reduced.

3. The factum of deduction of pension from the amount of compensation was considered by the Full Bench of this Court in Delhi Transport Corporation v. Meena Chaturvedi & Ors., 122 (2005) DLT 75 (FB). The Full Bench considered the judgment in Helen C. Rebello v. Maharashtra SRTC, 1999 (1) SCC 90 and held that it was not permissible to deduct the amount of family pension from the compensation payable to the legal representatives of the deceased.

4. As far as adoption of multiplier is concerned, the instant case is squarely covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court in K.R. Madhusudhan & Ors. v. Administrative Officer & Anr., (2011) 4 SCC 689 where the Supreme Court deprecated the practice of adopting split multiplier. Thus, normally the multiplier has to be applied as per the age of the deceased irrespective of the date of the superannuation. Thus, there is no fault in adopting the multiplier of 9 as taken by the Claims Tribunal.

5. The salary slip Ex.PW2/2 proved that the deceased had a salary of `29,405/- which was paid in July, 2010. PW2 Hira Lal, Assistant Director, DDA testified that the deceased was given an increment w.e.f. 01.07.2010 for which the arrears on the salary were also due to the legal heirs of the deceased. This part of PW2's testimony was not challenged in cross- examination. Thus, it was established that the deceased's salary on the date of the accident was `31,165/- including `4,800/- towards House Rent Allowance (HRA). The payment

of HRA being non-taxable, the liability of Income Tax comes to `18276/- only. On adopting a multiplier of 9, the loss of dependency comes to `21,34,224/-(`373980-18276=`355704X 2/3 X 9).

6. Loss of love and affection can never be measured in terms of money. Thus, uniformity has to be adopted by the Courts while granting non-pecuniary damages. The Supreme Court in Sunil Sharma v. Bachitar Singh (2011) 11 SCC 425 and in Baby Radhika Gupta v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited (2009) 17 SCC 627 granted ` 25,000/- (in total to all the claimants) only under the head of loss of love and affection. Thus, I would reduce the compensation under this head to ` 25,000/- only. On adding a sum of `10,000/- each towards funeral charges, loss of consortium and loss to estate, the overall compensation comes to `21,89,224/-.

7. Thus, the overall compensation stands reduced from `23,83,916/- to `21,89,224/-.

8. The compensation of `21,89,224/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum as awarded by the Claims Tribunal shall be released in the proportion and in the manner as directed by the Claims Tribunal. The balance sum of `1,94,692/- along with proportionate interest and the interest accrued during the pendency of the Appeal shall be refunded to the Appellant Insurance Company.

9. The statutory amount of `25,000/- shall be refunded to the Appellant Insurance Company.

10. The Appeal is allowed in above terms.

(G.P. MITTAL) JUDGE APRIL 30, 2012 pst