Icici Lombard General Insurance ... vs Meera Devi & Ors.
2012 Latest Caselaw 5831 Del

*        IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                                 Date of decision: 27th September, 2012
+        MAC.APP. 286/2012

         ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD...... Appellant
                       Through: Ms. Suman Bagga, Adv.

                           versus


         MEERA DEVI & ORS.                                      ..... Respondents
                      Through:                Mr. Rajeshwar P. Gupta, Adv. for R-1 to
                                              R-4.

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

                                       JUDGMENT

G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)

1. The Appellant ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited seeks reduction of compensation of `38,14,295/- awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) in favour of Respondents No.1 to 4 for the death of Anand Singh, aged 45 years and was working as Head Constable in Delhi Police who died in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 15.05.2010.

2. The following contentions are raised on behalf of the Appellant:-

(i) Out of the total salary of `25,013/-, the deceased was getting a sum of `2160/- towards transport allowance and `60/- towards conveyance allowance. Thus, the same being not for the benefit of

the family and incidental to employment was liable to be deducted from the deceased's income.

(ii) Respondent No.2 was 23 years of age at the time of the accident and was therefore, not dependent on his father. Smt. Kishni, Respondent No.4 (the deceased's mother) was living with the deceased's other brothers and was also not therefore dependent on the deceased.

(iii) The deduction towards personal and living expenses should have been one-third instead of one-fourth made by the Claims Tribunal.

3. On the other hand, learned counsel for Respondents No.1 to 4 states that Respondent No.2 Akash Mann was aged only 21 years at the time of the accident. He was still a student of B.Tech in Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and was therefore dependent on his deceased father, Smt. Kishni, the deceased's mother was dependent on the deceased.

4. I have before me the last pay certificate Ex.PW-3/A which shows the gross salary of the deceased as `25,013/-. It reveals that the deceased was getting the transport allowance of `2160/- and conveyance allowance of `60/-. This being incidental to the employment was liable to be deducted from the gross salary for computation of the loss of dependency.

5. The Respondents have placed on the record Respondent No.2's marks sheet which shows that the Respondent No.2 completed his B.Tech only in the year 2011. Thus, Respondent No.2 was dependent on the deceased. Even after completion of studies, it takes some time for the children to

settle. Thus, by no stretch of imagination, the Respondent No.2 can be said to be not dependent on the deceased.

6. In the Indian society, the mothers stay with their children at their will and they are dependent on their children, particularly, after the death of their husbands. Tara Chand, husband of Respondent No.4 Smt. Kishni had already expired. Thus, Respondent No.4 was rightly considered as dependent on deceased Anand Singh by the Claims Tribunal. The deduction of one-fourth towards the personal and living expenses was rightly made by the Claims Tribunal.

7. The sum of `2160/- towards Transport allowance and `60/- towards conveyance allowance is to be deducted from the gross salary as this is incidental to the employment. A sum of ` 3804/- and `217/- was being paid towards HRA, after deducting this amount for the purpose of computation of income tax, there was liability of income tax of about `4,000/-.

8. The loss of dependency thus comes to `34,16,115/- (25013/- - 2220/- = 22,793/- x 12 - 4,000/- (income tax) + 30% x 3/4 x 13).

9. Respondents No.1 to 4 are further entitled to a sum of `25,000/- towards loss of love and affection and `10,000/- each towards loss to estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses.

10. The overall compensation comes to `34,71,115/- as against `38,14,295/-

awarded by the Claims Tribunal.

11. Thus there is reduction of `3,43,180/- in the compensation awarded.

12. The excess amount of `3,43,180/- along with proportionate interest and the interest accrued, if any, during the pendency of the Appeal shall be refunded to the Appellant Insurance Company.

13. The compensation awarded shall be disbursed/held in fixed deposit in favour of Respondents No.1 to 4 in terms of the order passed by the Claims Tribunal.

14. The compensation awarded was ordered to be released by the Claims Tribunal on execution taken by the Respondents. The excess amount of `3,43,180/- along with proportionate interest of `28,340/- (as on the date of deposit i.e. 30.11.2011) stands reduced from the share of Respondent No.1 which shall be deposited by surrendering the FDR of the above amount to the Claims Tribunal within six weeks.

15. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for Respondents No.1 to 4 that all the FDRs are with the State Bank of India, Nangli, Sakravati Branch, New Delhi. The excess amount of `3,43,180/- along with proportionate interest of `28,340/- as stated by the learned counsel for the parties shall be refunded and paid to the Appellant by the said Bank.

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

17. The Appeal is allowed in above terms.

18. Pending Applications also stand disposed of.

(G.P. MITTAL) JUDGE SEPTEMBER 27, 2012 vk