United India Insurance Co Ltd vs Kanhiya Lal & Ors
2012 Latest Caselaw 3514 Del

*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                         Reserved on: 18th May, 2012
                                       Pronounced on: 25th May, 2012
+       MAC.APP. 464/2012

        UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD ..... Appellant
                      Through Mr. Abhishek Kumar, Advocate

                    versus

        KANHIYA LAL & ORS                         ..... Respondents
                     Through          Mr. Peeush Sharma, Advocate

        CORAM:
        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL

                             JUDGMENT

G. P. MITTAL, J.

1. The Appeal is for reduction of compensation of `38,10,000/-

awarded for the death of Ram Kishore who died in a motor accident which occurred on 22.12.2010.

2. During evidence before the Claims Tribunal it was established that the deceased was employed in the Bureau of Narcotics. As per the Salary Certificate Ex.PW-1/1 he was getting a gross salary of `26,310/-. The deceased was aged about 48 years. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) made a deduction of 10% towards the income tax, added 30% towards the future prospects, treated the deceased's father as a dependent and therefore, deducted one-fourth towards the

personal and living expenses of the deceased, applying the multiplier of '13' to compute the loss of dependency as `37,70,000/-.

3. It is urged by the learned counsel for the Appellant that the deceased's father owned 3½ bighas of agricultural land. He was residing in his village and was not dependent on the deceased. Therefore, there should have been deduction of one- third towards the personal and living expenses instead of one- fourth taken by the Claims Tribunal.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondents No.1 to 5 argues that the income tax should have been deducted first before making the addition towards the future prospects. The father was aged about 71 years and was, therefore, rightly taken as a dependent by the Claims Tribunal. It is urged that the married daughter is also to be considered as a dependent as some gifts are always given on various occasions by the parents.

5. The deceased Ram Kishore was a widower. He was survived by two minor sons aged 13 years and 15 years. A married daughter aged 21 years and aged mother and father.

6. It is well settled that a married daughter is not financially dependent on his father. (Smt. Manjuri Bera v. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr., AIR 2007 SC 1474).

7. Kanhiya Lal, the deceased's father appeared as PW-1. In cross-

examination, he admitted that he was doing agriculture in his village. He stated that he owned 3½ bighas of land in the village. In Sarla Verma (Smt.) & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121, the Supreme Court laid down that unless there is evidence to the contrary the father shall not be considered as financially dependent.

8. In view of the fact that Kanhiya Lal had income from agriculture, he cannot be considered to be financially dependent on the deceased. Therefore, the deduction towards the personal and living expenses, when the number of dependents is 2-3 has to be taken as one-third(Sarla Verma supra).

9. As far as the liability towards the income tax is concerned, it should be not just by approximation as was taken by the Claims Tribunal in the instant case. Even if, it is not exact, it should be near exact.

10. A sum of `1609/- paid towards the House Rent Allowance to the deceased was not subject to tax. The liability of tax was `13,900/- in the assessment year 2011-12. The loss of dependency would come to `34,00,505/- (3,15,720/- - 13,900/- + 30% x 2/3 x 13).

11. On adding a sum of `25,000/- towards loss of love and affection, `10,000/- each towards loss to estate and funeral expenses, the overall compensation comes to `34,45,505/-.

12. The overall compensation is thus reduced from `38,10,000/- to `34,45,505/-.

13. The excess amount of `3,64,495/- along with interest shall be refunded to the Appellant Insurance Company.

14. The amount of compensation along with proportionate interest shall be apportioned as under:-

                   Respondent No.1 =      ` 1,00,000/-

                   Respondent No.2 =      ` 5,00,000/-

                   Respondent No.3 =      ` 1,45,505/-

                   Respondent No.4 =      ` 13,50,000/-

                   Respondent No.5 =      ` 13,50,000/-

15. The amount held payable to the Respondents No.1 to 5 shall be disbursed/held in fixed deposit in terms of the order passed by the Claims Tribunal.

16. The statutory amount of `25,000/- shall also be refunded to the Appellant Insurance Company.

17. The Appeal is allowed in above terms.

(G.P. MITTAL) JUDGE MAY 25, 2012 vk