Delhi High Court
Madhu Gupta & Ors. vs Naresh Kumar & Ors. on 6 March, 2012
Author: G.P. Mittal
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 6th March, 2012
+ MAC.APP. 453/2006
MADHU GUPTA & ORS. ..... Appellants
Through: Mr. Manish Maini, Adv. for
Mr. Y.R. Sharma, Adv.
versus
NARESH KUMAR & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Manjusha Wadhwa, Adv.
Ms. Arpan Wadhwa, Adv. for
R-3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
JUDGMENT
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
1. The Appellants, who are the legal representatives of deceased
Dinesh Kumar Gupta seek enhancement of compensation of `
18,80,000/- awarded in a motor accident which occurred on
8.9.2001.
2. The following contentions are raised on behalf of the
Appellants:-
(i) There should have been deduction of one-fourth towards
the personal and living expenses instead of one-third as
taken by the Claims Tribunal on the basis of the judgment
in Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation &
Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121.
(ii) The Income Tax was deducted @ 30%, whereas the
actual liability towards income tax was much less i.e. `
457/- at source by the employer.
(iii) The conveyance allowance should be included while
computing the loss of dependency.
3. The Claims Tribunal in the impugned judgment accepted the
deceased's salary as ` 15,000/- per month and deducted `
1500/- which were being paid as conveyance allowance, further
deducted 30% towards tax liability, added 50% towards future
prospects, deducted 1/4th towards personal and living expenses
and applied multiplier of '16' for computing the loss of
dependency.
4. In the case of Sarla Verma (supra), it was held that where the
number of dependents were 4 to 6, there will be deduction of
1/4 towards the personal and living expenses. A sum of `1500/-
was being paid to the deceased towards conveyance allowance
to meet the expenses incidental to employment. The said
amount cannot be taken into consideration for computation of
loss of dependency. Since the deceased was aged 36 years on
the date of the accident, an addition of 50% in the deceased's
income was required to be made towards future prospects and
1/4th was required to be deducted towards the personal and
living expenses. There was a liability of about `19,000/- as
Income Tax on the income of `1,62,000/- and on applying the
multiplier of 15, the loss of dependency comes to `24,13,125/-
(`13,500/- X 12 =1,62,000/- - 19,000/-(Income Tax) =
1,43,000/- + 50% X 3/4 X 15).
5. The Claims Tribunal awarded a sum of ` 30,000/- towards loss
of consortium and ` 30,000/- towards loss of love and affection
and ` 5,000/- towards funeral expenses.
6. A sum of ` 25,000/- is normally awarded towards loss of love
and affection. (Sunil Sharma v. Bachitar Singh (2011) 11 SCC
425 and in Baby Radhika Gupta v. Oriental Insurance
Company Limited (2009) 17 SCC 627).
7. As per Sarla Verma (Supra) a sum upto `10,000/- is awarded
towards loss of consortium and actuals on funeral expenses. I
would reassess the compensation under these heads and would
award a sum of ` 25,000/- towards loss of love and affection, `
10,000/- each towards loss of state, funeral expenses and loss of
consortium.
8. The awarded compensation comes to `24,68,125/-. The
enhanced amount of `5,88,125/- shall carry interest @ 7.5% per
annum from the date of filing of the petition till the payment.
9. The Respondent No.3 Insurance Company is directed to make
the deposit within 30 days to the Registrar General of this
Court.
10. 50% of the compensation along with interest shall be payable to
the first Appellant and 25% each to the second and third
Appellants. The amount payable to Appellant Nos. 2 and 3
shall be held in fixed deposit till they attain the age of 21 years.
Out of the amount payable to the first Appellant 25% shall be
released forthwith. The remaining amount shall be held in fixed
deposit for a period of 2 years, 4 years and 6 years in equal
proportion. The deposit shall be made in UCO Bank, Delhi
High Court Branch.
11. Appeal is allowed in above terms.
12. No costs.
13. Dasti.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
MARCH 06, 2012
dk
