Delhi High Court
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance ... vs Meenakshi & Ors on 30 May, 2012
Author: G.P. Mittal
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 30th May, 2012
+ MAC.APP. 1061/2011
BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD.....
Appellant
Through: Ms. Neerja Sachdeva, Advocate
versus
MEENAKSHI & ORS ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. S.N. Parashar, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
JUDGMENT
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
1. The Appeal is for reduction of compensation of `29,31,196/-
awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims
Tribunal) for the death of Hukum Chand who died in a motor
accident which occurred on 05.07.2008.
2. The finding on negligence reached by the Claims Tribunal is
not disputed in the Appeal. My task is only to go into the
quantum of compensation.
3. During inquiry before the Claims Tribunal, deceased's salary
was established to be `21,357/- by Salary Certificate Ex.PW-
2/A. It was also established that the deceased was aged 50
years and eight months on the date of the accident. The Claims
Tribunal made an addition of 30% towards the future prospects
and applied the multiplier of '13' considering that the deceased
was aged 50 years.
4. The following contentions are raised on behalf of the Appellant
Insurance Company:-
(i) Since the deceased was more than 50 years, the
appropriate multiplier was '11'.
(ii) No addition was permissible on account of future
prospects beyond the age of 50 years as per the ratio in
Sarla Verma (Smt.) & Ors. v. Delhi Transport
Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121.
(iii) The compensation of `50,000/- awarded towards the loss
of love and affection is on the higher side.
(iv) No deduction towards the income tax was made by the
Claims Tribunal.
5. It is well settled that the actual incidence towards income tax
has to be deducted while awarding the loss of dependency.
(Sarla Verma (supra).
6. Sarla Verma (supra) discussed the previous report of the
Supreme Court in Sarla Dixit v. Balwant Yadav, (1996) 3 SCC
179; General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport
Corporation, Trivandrum v. Susamma Thomas (Mrs.) and Ors.
(1994) 2 SCC 176; U.P. SRTC v. Trilok Chandara, (1996) 4
SCC 362; and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Charlie, (2005)
10 SCC 720, and laid down the multiplier applicable at various
age groups. It also laid down the practice to be followed for
grant of future prospects. The same can be extracted in a
tabulated form hereunder:-
"I. MULTIPLIER
Age of the Multiplier
deceased (in
years)
II. FUTURE PROSPECTS
(i) Permanent job : Actual salary - tax + 50%
Below 40 years of age towards future prospects.
(ii) Permanent job : Actual salary - tax + 30%
Between 40-50 years towards future prospects.
(iii) More than 50 years with: Actual salary only.
permanent job. No addition for future
prospects.
(iv) Deceased employed at a fixed: Only actual income to be
Salary (without provision for taken. No addition.
Annual increments)"
7. It may be noticed that the multiplier has been given from the
ages of 15-20, 21-25, 26-30 and so on. Thus, there is a
technical flaw as to the multiplier between the ages of 20-21,
25-26, 30-31 and so on. To apply the judgment purposefully,
the multiplier has to be taken as per the age which is nearer to
the birth on the date of the accident.
8. In this case, the age was 50 years and eight months i.e. which
was nearer to 51 years. Thus, the appropriate multiplier would
be '11' instead of '13'.
9. It is not disputed that the deceased was in permanent
employment with Deen Bandhu Chhotu Ram University of
Science & Technology, Murthal (Sonepat). As per Sarla Verma
(supra) the legal representatives were entitled to the addition of
50% towards the future prospects when the age was below 40
years and 30% when the age was between 40-50 years. Since
the deceased had crossed the limit of 50 years by a few months
and considering the peculiar circumstances of the case, it would
be appropriate to grant benefit towards future prospects to the
extent of 20% only.
10. The liability towards income tax on an annual income of
`2,56,284/- (21,357/- x 12) comes to `10,500/-.
11. Thus, the loss of dependency comes to `21,62,899/- (21,357/- x
12 - 10,500/- (tax) + 20% x 2/3 x 11).
12. The Claims Tribunal awarded a sum of `50,000/- towards loss
of love and affection. 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 only ` 25,000/-
(in total to all the claimants) under the head of loss of love and
affection. Thus, I would reduce the compensation under this
head from `50,000/- to ` 25,000/- only.
13. Further, on adding a notional sum of `10,000/- each towards
loss to estate and funeral expenses, the overall compensation
comes to `22,07,899/- (21,62,899/- + 45,000/-).
14. The overall compensation stands reduced from `29,31,196/- to
`22,07,899/- (including the interim compensation of `50,000/-),
which shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of
filing of the Petition till its deposit.
15. The compensation awarded shall be equally apportioned
amongst the Respondents and shall be disbursed/held in fixed
deposit in terms of the order passed by the Claims Tribunal.
16. The excess amount of `7,23,297/- along with interest and the
interest accrued, if any, during the pendency of the Appeal shall
be refunded to the Appellant Insurance Company.
17. The statutory amount of `25,000/- be refunded to the Appellant
Insurance Company.
18. The Appeal is allowed in above terms.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
MAY 30, 2012
vk
