Delhi High Court
Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. vs Anil Kumar Gujral & Ors on 12 December, 2012
Author: G.P. Mittal
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 12th December, 2012
+ MAC. APP. 789/2012
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. ..... Appellant
Through: Mr.Pradeep Gaur, Advocate
versus
ANIL KUMAR GUJRAL & ORS. .... Respondents
Through: Mr.Anil Kumar Gujral, R-1 in person.
+ MAC. APP. 805/2012
ANIL KUMAR GUJRAL & ANR. ..... Appellants
Through: Mr.Anil Kumar Gujral, A-1 in person.
versus
RAJESH SINGH & ORS. .... Respondents
Through: Mr.Pradeep Gaur, Advocate for R-3
Insurance Company
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
JUDGMENT
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
1. These two Appeals arise out of a judgment dated 30th April, 2012 passed
by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) whereby a
compensation of ` 58,88,300/- was awarded in favour of the legal
representatives of the deceased Gaurav Gujral, who died in a motor
vehicle accident which occurred on 09.10.2011.
2. MAC APP. No.789/2012 has been filed by the Oriental Insurance
Company, the Insurer of the vehicle involved in the accident, for
reduction of the compensation awarded whereas MAC APP. 805/2012
has been filed by the Legal Representatives of deceased Gaurav Gujral
for enhancement of compensation.
3. For the sake of convenience, the Appellant in MAC APP 789/2012 shall
be referred to as 'the Insurance Company' whereas the Appellants in
Cross-Appeal 805/2012 shall be referred to as 'the Claimants'.
4. Finding on negligence reached by the Claims Tribunal has not been
challenged by the Insurance Company. Thus, the same has attained
finality.
5. It is not in dispute that the deceased had acquired B.Tech (Electronics &
Communication) from Delhi College of Engineering in the year 2006. He
completed his MBA (International Business) from the Indian Institute of
Foreign Trade in the year 2010. At the time of the accident, the deceased
was working as a Manager in Yes Bank Ltd. and was getting a salary of
` 11,00,000/- per annum in addition to bonus of ` 1,25,000/- per annum.
6. The Claims Tribunal while accepting this income deducted a sum of `
8,361/- per month towards conveyance, deducted a sum of ` 2,59,000/-
towards liability on income tax and applied a multiplier of 11 to compute
the loss of dependency as ` 58,43,259/- as rounded of ` 58,43,300/-.
7. The Claims Tribunal further awarded a notional sum of ` 25,000/-
towards loss of love and affection and ` 10,000/- each towards loss to
estate and funeral expenses.
8. The overall compensation as awarded by the Claims Tribunal comes to `
58,88,300/-.
9. The following contentions are raised on behalf of the Appellant Insurance
Company:
i) The letter dated 01.07.2011 by which the deceased was
granted higher salary did not disclose the breakup of the
salary. Thus, the sum of ` 11,00,000/- should not have been
taken as the deceased's salary.
ii) The grant of bonus of ` 1,25,000/- for the year 2010-2011 to
the deceased cannot be said to be his regular income; the
same should not have been added while computing the loss
of dependency.
10. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Claimants urges that the
Claims Tribunal erred in taking a sum of ` 8,361/- per month towards
conveyance. In fact, only a sum of ` 8,00/- per month was being paid to
the deceased towards conveyance allowance.
11. It is urged that liability towards income tax for the relevant year as per the
table of the computation of income tax was only ` 2,20,000/- as against
` 2,59,000/- made by the Claims Tribunal.
12. It is further urged that the entire income of the deceased was for himself
and for his family and after deducting the conveyance allowance, the
entire income must be taken into consideration to compute the loss of
dependency.
13. I have before me the Trial Court record. In order to prove the deceased's
salary certificate, the Claimants examined Priya Prakash Parida (PW2),
Vice President, Human Capital Management, Yes Bank, South Extension,
New Delhi. She proved the letter dated 01.07.2011 as Ex. PW2/2
whereby the deceased's salary was increased. The Appellant Insurance
Company did not prefer to cross-examine the witness on the component
of the gross salary. In fact, the month wise salary slip right from the
month of April to the month of September were also placed on record.
14. Perusal of the salary slips right from the month of April to the month of
September shows that even before the appraisal letter dated 01.07.2011,
the deceased was getting a salary of little less than ` 9,00,000/-. Breakup
of the salary is also given, which shows that except the amount of `
8,00/- which was paid as conveyance allowance, all the allowances were
personal for the benefit of the deceased and his family. Thus, if the
deceased's salary was enhanced on appraisal w.e.f. 01.07.2011, it would
be reasonable to hold that the sum of ` 11,00,000/- mentioned as
compensation for the financial year 2011-2012 contained conveyance
allowance, that is, ` 8,00/- per month, as per previous months. Thus, the
Claims Tribunal rightly accepted the deceased's income to be `
11,00,000/- per annum.
15. As far as addition of bonus for computation of loss of dependency is
concerned, the same is also part of the salary. This was the deceased's
income at the time of his death and it, therefore, has to be taken into
account to award the loss of dependency.
16. I have gone through the table for calculation of income tax for the
assessment year 2012-2013, the liability of income tax on an income of `
12,15,400/- would be ` 2,20,000/-.
17. The loss of dependency thus comes to ` 67,18,950/- (11,00,000/- +
1,25,000/-(bonus)-9,600/-(conveyance allowance) = 12,15,400/- -
2,20,000/-(income tax) + 50% x 1/2 x 9).
18. The Claimants are further entitled to a sum of ` 25,000/- towards loss of
love and affection and ` 10,000/- each towards loss to estate and funeral
expenses.
19. The overall compensation thus comes to ` 67,63,950/-.
20. Thus, the compensation is enhanced from ` 58,88,300/- to ` 67,63,950/-,
which shall carry interest @ 9% per annum as awarded by the Claims
Tribunal from the date of filing the Detailed Accident Report till the
payment of enhanced compensation. The compensation shall enure for
the benefits of both the Claimants in equal share.
21. It is urged by the learned counsel for the Claimants that by judgment
dated 30.04.2012 a large part of the amount has been held to be in long
terms fixed deposit. The Claimants belong to educated family and there is
no possibility of the amount being drifted away or misutilized. It is urged
that a larger sum may be ordered to be released in cash to the Claimants.
22. The enhanced compensation shall be deposited with the Claims Tribunal
within six weeks. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed
that 50% of the enhanced compensation along with proportionate interest
shall be held in fixed deposit for a period of 3 years on which the
Claimants shall be entitled to quarterly interest. Rest 50% shall be
released on deposit.
23. In view of the above, MAC APP. 789/2012 filed by the Insurance
Company is hereby dismissed and MAC APP.805/2012 filed by the
Claimants is allowed.
24. The statutory deposit of ` 25,000/-, if any, shall be refunded to the
Appellant Insurance Company.
25. Pending Applications stand disposed of.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
DECEMBER 12, 2012
v
