Delhi High Court
National Insurance Company ... vs Sarojini Devi & Ors on 2 May, 2012
Author: G.P. Mittal
$~8
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision:2nd May, 2012
+ MAC. APP. No.341/2010
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED.
..... Appellant
Through: Ms.Shantha Devi Raman with
Mr. S.K. Tiwari, Advocates
Versus
SAROJINI DEVI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Anshuman Bal, Advocates
for the Respondents No.1 to 4.
Ms. Arati Mahajan, Advocate
for the Respondent No.6.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
JUDGMENT
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
1. The Appeal is for reduction of compensation of Rs.17,45,572/-
awarded for the death of Rattan Mani who was working in
MTNL; was aged 51 years and getting a salary of Rs.18,403/-
p.m.
2. The Appellant Insurance Company disputes the quantum of
compensation on the grounds:
(i) There were two or three dependents; the deduction
towards the personal and living expenses should have
been 1/3rd instead of 1/4th.
(ii) Deduction towards liability of Income Tax was not made.
3. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the
Respondents/Claimants that the deceased was survived by a
widow, daughter aged 18 years and two sons aged 23 and 27
years. The son who was aged 23 years at least must be
considered as a dependent. It is submitted that the
compensation of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of love and affection
was on the lower side. It is stated that the liability towards
Income Tax was to be taken into consideration while
computing loss of dependency from only out of the income
which was subject to Income Tax.
4. Admittedly, the widow and the daughter aged 18 years were
financially dependent on the deceased. A son aged 23 years
would be in the process of settling in his life and, therefore, he
was also to be considered as a dependent. In any case, there
would be deduction of 1/3rd towards the personal and living
expenses irrespective of the fact whether the number of
dependents are two or three in view of the report in Sarla
Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009)
6 SCC 121.
5. The compensation of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of love and
affection was on the lower side. 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) under the head
of loss of love and affection. Thus, I would enhance the
compensation under this head to ` 25,000/-.
6. After the deduction of an amount of `650/- which was the
payment made towards transport allowance and washing
allowance from the gross salary of the deceased and excluding
Rs.2,736/- paid towards the house rent allowance from the
calculation made towards liability of Income Tax, the deceased
was expected to pay Income Tax of Rs.5959/-. Thus the loss of
dependency comes to Rs.15,18,564/- (Rs.17753/- X 12 - 5959
X 2/3 X 11). On adding a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards loss of
love and affection and Rs.10,000/- each towards loss of
consortium, loss to estate and funeral expenses, the overall
compensation comes to Rs.15,73,564/-.
7. The amount of compensation along with interest @ 7.5% as
awarded by the Claims Tribunal and interest, if any, accrued
during pendency of the Appeal shall be released to the
Claimants in the proportion and the manner as directed by the
Claims Tribunal.
8. The excess amount of Rs.1,72,008/- 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 Rs.25,000/- shall be refunded to the
Appellant Insurance Company.
10. The Appeal is allowed in above terms.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
MAY 02, 2012
pst
