Delhi High Court
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Gurmeet Kaur & Ors. on 19 July, 2013
Author: Suresh Kait
$~7
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 19th July, 2013
+ MAC.APP. No. 257/2012 & CM No. 4495/2012 (for stay)
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. L.K. Tyagi, Advocate.
Versus
GURMEET KAUR & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. S.N. Parashar, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
MAC.APP. No. 257/2012
1. Vide the instant appeal, the appellant/Insurance Company has
challenged the impugned award dated 09.12.2011, whereby the learned
Tribunal has granted the compensation amount in favour of the
respondents/claimants as under:-
"Loss of dependency : Rs.13,15,800/-
Loss of Funeral Expenses : Rs.10,000/-
Loss of Love and Affection : Rs.10,000/-
Loss of Estate : Rs.10,000/-
Loss of Consortium : Rs.10,000/-
Total : Rs. 13,55,800/-"
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/Insurance
Company has argued on two grounds. Firstly, the learned Tribunal has
wrongly deducted 1/4th towards personal expenses of the deceased. He
submitted that the total number of dependents were five, i.e., wife, two
children and parents of the deceased. However, the learned Tribunal has not
considered the father as dependent upon the deceased and considering only
four dependents deducted 1/4th towards personal expenses. Whereas as per
the well accepted principle, the learned Tribunal ought to have deducted
1/3rd towards personal expenses.
3. The second ground argued by him is that at the time of the accident,
age of the deceased was 38 years. While calculating the compensation, the
learned Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased on the basis of the
Minimum Wages Act applicable to a skilled worker as Rs.6,500/- per month
and granted 50% towards future prospects, though it should have been
granted 30% towards the future prospects.
4. On the issue of deduction of personal expenses, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the respondents has relied upon Sarla Verma & Ors.
Vs. DTC & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC121 and submitted that the Apex Court in
para 30 has held as under:-
"30. Though in some cases the deduction to be made towards
personal and living expenses is calculated on the basis of units
indicated in Trilok Chandra, the general practice is to apply
standardized deductions. Having considered several subsequent
decisions of this Court, we are of the view that where the
deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and
living expenses of the deceased, should be one-third (1/3rd)
where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3, one-
fourth (1/4th) where the number of dependant family members is
4 to 6, and one-fifth (1/5th) where the number of dependant
family members exceed six."
He submitted that in view of the observations made above,
considering the number of dependents, the learned Tribunal has rightly
deducted 1/4th towards personal expenses.
5. On the issue of future prospects, learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the respondent No.1/claimant has relied upon the case of Rajesh & Ors.
Vs. Rajbir Singh, 2013 (6) SCALE 563, wherein the Apex Court has held
that:-
"11. Since, the Court in Santosh Devi's case (supra) actually
intended to follow the principle in the case of salaried persons
as laid in Sarla Verma's case (supra) and to make it applicable
also to the self-employed and persons on fixed wages, it is
clarified that the increase in the case of those groups is not
30% always; it will also have a reference to the age. In other
words, in the case of self-employed or persons with fixed
wages, in case, the deceased victim was below 40 years, there
must be an addition of 50% to the actual income of the
deceased while computing future prospects. Needless to say
that the actual income should be income after paying the tax, if
any. Addition should be 30% in case the deceased was in the
age group of 40 to 50 years."
He submitted that the age of the deceased at the time of accident was
38 years. Keeping in view the age of the deceased, learned Tribunal has
rightly granted 50% towards future prospects.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
7. On the issue of deduction towards the personal expenses, the
Tribunals and Courts have to see the facts and circumstances of each case.
8. In the present case, the deceased left his wife, two minor children and
the parents behind him. Though, the learned Tribunal has held that father is
not dependent upon the deceased, however, keeping in view the fact that two
minor children are the greatest liability on the wife and mother of the
deceased.
9. In view of the dictum of Sarla Verma (supra), I do not find any
discrepancy in deducting 1/4th towards personal expenses by the learned
Tribunal.
10. As regards the 50% future prospects granted by the learned Tribunal
is concerned, keeping in view the dictum of Rajesh & Ors. Vs. Rajbir Singh
(supra), I do not find any discrepancy in the order of the learned Tribunal.
11. In view of the law discussed above, both issues are covered; therefore,
I do not find any merit in the instant appeal. Hence, the same is dismissed.
12. No order as to costs.
13. Consequently, the Registry of this Court is directed to release the
statutory amount in favour of the appellant/Insurance Company.
13. Vide order dated 30.07.2012, 60% of the awarded amount has already
been released in favour of the claimants. The Registrar General of this
Court is directed to release the balance compensation amount with upto date
interest in favour of the respondents/claimants in terms of the award dated
09.12.2011.
CM No. 4495/2012 (for stay)
With the dismissal of the appeal itself, the instant application has
become infructuous. The same is disposed of accordingly.
SURESH KAIT, J.
JULY 19, 2013
sb
