Delhi High Court
Icici Lombard General Insurance ... vs Seema Madaan & Ors on 13 March, 2012
Author: G.P. Mittal
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 13th March, 2012
+ MAC.APP. 16/2012
ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD
..... Appellant
Through: Ms.Suman Bagga, Advocate
versus
SEEMA MADAAN & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Navneet Goyal and
Ms.Suman N.Rawat,
Advocates.
+ MAC.APP. 178/2012
SEEMA MADAAN & ORS ..... Appellants
Through: Mr.Navneet Goyal and
Ms.Suman N.Rawat,
Advocates.
versus
BALWANT SINGH & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Ms.Suman Bagga, Advocate for
R-3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
JUDGMENT
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
1. These are two Cross Appeals. Mac App.16/2011 titled as ICICI
Lombard General Insurance Co Ltd V. Seema Madaan & Ors.,
has been filed by the Appellant for reduction of compensation
on the ground that the Tribunal erred in adopting the multiplier
of 15. Since the deceased was above 40 years it should have
been 14 (For the sake of convenience the Appellant ICICI
Lombard General Insurance Company Limited shall be referred
to as the Appellant and the Appellants in Cross Appeal shall be
referred to as the Claimants).
2. MAC APP.178/2012 has been filed by the Claimants for
enhancement of compensation. The contention raised on behalf
of the Claimants in MAC APP.178/2012 are :-
(i) Deceased's business was increasing on yearly basis. The
Claims Tribunal ought to have added future prospects to
the extent of 30% on the basis of law laid down in Sarla
Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC
(ii) The deceased's income in the assessment year 2006-2007
was `9,62,844/-. The Claims Tribunal erred in accepting
the deceased's income to be `2,90,000/-.
(iii) Ms.Veena Madaan, Claimant No.4, the deceased's
unmarried sister, was also dependant on the deceased.
Since the number of dependants were four, the Claims
Tribunal should have deducted 1/4th towards personal
living expenses of the deceased instead of 1/3rd as taken
by the Claims Tribunal.
3. A report was filed by the SDM that the business had been
closed down after the death of the deceased and the widow was
not given any share in the business in the partnership firm.
Ms.Seema Madaan in her affidavit Ex.PW-1/B also testified in
this regard. No evidence was produced by the Appellant that
the widow was continuing with the business.
4. In the three Income Tax Returns placed on record, the
deceased's date of birth was mentioned as 13.04.1966 and in the
passport it was mentioned 13.04.1967. In any case, since the
deceased was more than 40 years the Claims Tribunal ought to
have adopted a multiplier of 14 instead of 15.
5. As far as the deceased's income is concerned, Income Tax
Return for the assessment years 2006-07, 2005-06 and 2004-05
Ex.PW-1/2, PW-1/3 and PW-1/4 respectively were proved on
record. It is evident that the deceased returned a total income
of `9,62,844/-, `5,29,051/- and `3,30,123/- respectively. This
would show that the deceased's income was substantially
increasing on year to year basis. The loss of dependency,
therefore, ought to have been considered after giving benefit of
30% towards future prospects. In the case of a self employed
person such a benefit was given by this Court in Dalvinder
Kaur v. United India Insurance Company, 2008 SCC 385 and in
an unreported judgment in Kavita Arora v. Raj Kumar & Ors.
MAC APP.404/2011 decided on 18.08.2011. An SLP bearing
No.35392/2011 preferred against the latter judgment was
dismissed by the Supreme Court by an order dated 06.01.2012.
6. As far as the number of dependants are concerned, Veena
Madaan was an unmarried sister aged 32 years. It has come in
evidence that she was staying sometimes with the deceased and
sometimes with other brothers. No evidence was produced that
she was financially dependent on the deceased. Deduction of
1/3rd towards personal living expenses was rightly taken by the
Claims Tribunal.
7. Computation of taxable income in respect of deceased is
extracted hereunder:-
"COMPUTATION OF TAXABLE INCOME
Name Rajkumar Madan
Address C-128, Dayanand Colony
Lajpat Nagar-IV, New Delhi-24
PAN AAMPK 7607 H
Assessment Year 2006-07 (31.03.2006)
DOB 13.04.1996
Status Individual
INCOME FROM BUSINESS & PROFESSION
Net Profit as per Profit & Loss A/c 434,126.28
Salary from Partnership Firm 225,000.00
Share of Profit from Partnership Firm 303,718.36
962,844.64
Less: Income Exempted U/s. 10
Share of Profit from Partnership Firm 303,718.36 659,126.28
Gross Total Income 659,126.28
Less: Rebate u/s 80C 76,278.00
Net Taxable Income 582,848.28
R/OFF 582,850.00
Income Tax Due 124,855.00
Add: Education Cess 2,497.00
Income Tax Paid
TDS (Original Certificate enclosed) 68,000.00
Selt Asstt. Tax 60,000.00 128,000.00"
8. Income tax on the share of profit from partnership firm of
`3,03,718/- was paid by the partnership firm and this income
was treated as exempted u/s 10 of the Income Tax Act. There
was total liability of income tax of `1,27,352/-. On deducting
this amount from the total income, adding 30% towards future
prospects, deducting 1/3rd from the same towards personal
living expenses and adopting a multiplier of 14, loss of
dependency would come to `1,01,37,302/- (`9,62,844-
`1,27,352/-+30%x2/3x14). On adding `25,000/- towards the
Loss of Love and Affection and `10,000/- each towards Loss of
Consortium, Loss to Estate and Funeral Expenses. The total
compensation comes to `1,01,92,302/-.
9. Thus the overall compensation is enhanced from `43,80,000 to
`1,01,92,302/- which shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum as
awarded by the Claims Tribunal. The enhanced compensation
of `58,12,302/- with interest shall be deposited by the Appellant
/ Insurance Company within 30 days with the Registrar General
of this Court and shall be apportioned amongst Claimants No.1
to 3 in equal proportion. The enhanced compensation payable to
Claimant No.1 shall be kept in fixed deposit for a period of 2
years, 4 years, 6 years, 8 years and 10 years in equal proportion.
The enhanced compensation awarded to Claimants No.2 and 3
shall be held in fixed deposit till they attain the age of 21 years,
in UCO Bank, Delhi High Court Branch. The Claimants will be
entitled to quarterly interest on the FDRs.
10. The statutory deposit of `25,000/- shall be refunded to the
Appellant through counsel in each Appeal.
11. Both the Appeals are allowed in above terms.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
MARCH 13, 2012
mr
