Delhi High Court
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Ramvati Upadhyay & Ors. on 21 February, 2012
Author: G.P. Mittal
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision:21st February, 2012
+ MAC.APP. 199/2011
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. ..... Appellant
Through: Mr.Pankaj Seth, Advocate
versus
RAMVATI UPADHYAY & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Nitinyajen with Ms. Sushma
Advocates for Respondents No.1
to 5.
WITH
+ MAC.APP. 383/2011
RAMAVATI UPADHYAY & ORS ..... Appellants
Through: Mr. Nitinyajen with Ms.Sushma
Advocates
versus
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Pankaj Seth, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
JUDGMENT
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
1. These are two Cross-Appeals. MAC APP No.199/2011 has
been filed by the Appellant United India Insurance Co. Ltd. for
reduction of compensation of `41,53,800/- awarded for the
death of Sh. R.K. Upadhyay who was aged 57 years and 04
months at the time of his death in an accident which occurred
on 24.03.2006.
2. The Cross-Objections which were registered as MAC APP.
No.383/2011 have been preferred by the Respondents 1 to 5 on
the ground that the compensation awarded is meager. For the
sake of convenience, the Appellant United India Insurance Co.
Ltd. shall be referred to as the Insurer and the Cross-
Objectionists shall be referred to as the Claimants.
3. During inquiry before the Claims Tribunal, it was established
that the deceased R.K. Upadhyay was a Mechanical Engineer
and was working as an Assistant General Manager with
Engineers India Ltd., a public sector undertaking of the
Government of India. The Claims Tribunal found that the
accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving of
bus No.DL-1PB-5979 insured by the Appellant; deducted an
amount of `1,35,219/- towards the liability of Income Tax;
deducted 1/3rd towards personal and living expenses as the
number of dependents were two i.e. the deceased's wife and the
deceased's mother; applied multiplier of 9 suitable to the
deceased's age to compute the loss of dependency as
`41,18,814/-.
4. It is urged by the learned counsel for the Appellant that the
deceased was to retire from his service with Engineers India
Ltd. just in a period of 02 years and 08 months. The Claims
Tribunal acted illegally in applying the multiplier of 9. It is
contended that whenever multiplicand is high, a lower
multiplier can be applied. Reliance is placed in United India
Insurance Co. Ltd. etc. v. Patricia Jean Mahajan & Ors, (2002)
6 SCC 281.
5. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the
Claimants that since the number of dependents were five, the
Claims Tribunal ought to have deducted 1/4th of the deceased's
income towards his personal and living expenses instead of
1/3rd. It is urged that as far as choice of multiplier in case of a
salaried employee is concerned, the case is covered by K.R.
Madhusudhan & Ors. v. Administrative Officer & Anr, (2011) 4
SCC 689.
6. I have carefully gone through the impugned judgment and have
perused the record. In United India Insurance Co. Ltd. etc. v.
Patricia Jean Mahajan & Ors(supra) related to an accident
which occurred in the year 1995, the multiplier of 7 was applied
to arrive at the compensation of `1.19 Crores and interest @
12% per annum was awarded by the Tribunal. The learned
Single Judge of this Court enhanced the multiplier to 10 and
held that at current exchange rate for dollar, the compensation
would be `10.38 Crores. The multiplier was further increased
to 13 by the Division Bench, raising the amount of
compensation to `16.12 Crores. It was in those circumstances
that the multiplier as applied by the learned Single Judge was
approved by the Supreme Court in the SLP. Herein an accident
has occurred 11 years after the accident in United India
Insurance Co. Ltd. etc. v. Patricia Jean Mahajan & Ors(supra),
and a compensation of ` `41,53,800/- has been awarded. The
case is squarely covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court
in K.R. Madhusudhan & Ors. v. Administrative Officer &
Anr(supra) wherein it was held that the High Court was wrong
in introducing the concept of split multiplier. The multiplier of
11 for the age between 51 to 55 years was accepted. Thus, no
fault can be found in the selection of multiplier of 9 at the age
of 57 years 04 months.
7. As far as deduction towards the personal and living expenses is
concerned, it was proved on record that one of the deceased's
daughter was already married. The other one was M.Sc. in
Biotech and was gainfully employed. Similarly, the son was a
Computer Engineer and was getting a salary of `85,000/- per
month. He admitted that he was an Engineer since the year
2000 and was not dependent on his father. In the
circumstances, the Claims Tribunal rightly deducted 1/3 rd of the
deceased's income towards the personal and living expenses.
8. The compensation of `41,53,800/- awarded by the Claims
Tribunal is just and reasonable.
9. The Appeals are devoid of any merit; the same are accordingly
dismissed.
10. The amount deposited shall be released to the Claimants in
terms of the Tribunal's order.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
FEBRUARY 21, 2012
pst
