Royal Sundaram Alliance ... vs Smt. Anita & Ors
2013 Latest Caselaw 1186 Del

*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                                      Decided on: 8th March, 2013
+       MAC.APP. 228/2012

        ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE CO. LTD.
                                             ..... Appellant
                    Through: Ms. Suman Bagga, Advocate

                    versus


        SMT. ANITA & ORS                                 ..... Respondents
                      Through:         Mr. Sudhir Nagar, Advocate for the
                                       Respondents No.1 to 5.


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

                                 JUDGMENT

G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)

1. The Appeal is for reduction of compensation of `14,40,943/- awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal(the Claims Tribunal) in favour of the Respondents No.1 to 5 for the death of Hari Om who died in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 21.02.2009.

2. The finding on negligence reached by the Claims Tribunal is not challenged by the Appellant Insurance Company; thus the same has attained finality.

3. On the quantum of compensation, the Respondents' case was that the deceased was an agriculturist and he was earning `20,000/- per month from agriculture and `15,000/- per month from the business of dairy farming.

Anita (PW1), the deceased's widow, had sworn an affidavit with regard to this income. She failed to produce any documentary evidence with regard to this income. In cross-examination, she denied the suggestion that her husband was not earning this amount. She admitted that her husband was not an Income Tax assessee. In the Assessment Year 2009-10, any income beyond `1,50,000/- was subject to Income Tax. Even if, an income of `2,40,000/-, claimed to be from agriculture, was exempted, the deceased was under an obligation to pay Incom e Tax on the remaining income of `1,80,000/- on a higher slab after making an addition in the income from agriculture.

4. Otherwise also, it is difficult to believe that deceased Hari Om had any income from agriculture. The only ground on which the income from agriculture was claimed was that Ved Prakash(the deceased's father) owned certain lands in village Narela. Admittedly, Ved Prakash had one more son in addition to the deceased. No evidence was led by the Respondents to prove that during his lifetime, Ved Prakash had given the land to the deceased Hari Om and not to the other son. No evidence was led to prove the amount spent on agricultural operations and the yield obtained. In the circumstances, it was not possible to determine the deceased's income on the ground that he was engaged in agriculture or was in dairy business.

5. The deceased was a matriculate and in the circumstances the loss of dependency has to be awarded on the basis of minimum wages of a matriculate. Otherwise also, even if it is assumed that the deceased was doing agriculture, in the absence of any specific evidence with regard to the amount spent on agricultural operations and the net income after deducting

the expenditure, the Respondents were entitled to loss of dependency on account of supervisory services rendered by the deceased. The Claims Tribunal, in the circumstances, took the minimum wages of a matriculate to compute the loss of dependency, but erred in making an addition of double the amount of the minimum wages. In the absence of any evidence as to future prospects an addition of only 30% with regard to the future prospects can be made on the basis of the report of the Supreme Court in Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors., 2012 (4) SCALE 559. The loss of dependency thus comes to `8,71,579/-(`4,382/- + 30% x 3/4 x 12 x 17) as against `13,40,943/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal.

6. It is urged that the award of `50,000/- towards loss of love and affection is on the higher side.

7. 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 to `25,000/- only.

8. The compensation of `20,000/- each awarded towards loss to estate and funeral expenses and `10,000/- towards loss of consortium is not challenged by the Appellant Insurance Company.

9. The overall compensation thus comes to `9,46,579/-.

10. By an order dated 02.03.2012, the award amount was directed to be deposited in UCO Bank, Delhi High Court Branch. The compensation of `9,46,579/- as awarded along with interest @ 7.5% per annum as directed by the Claims Tribunal shall be released in favour of the Claimants in terms of the orders passed by the Claims Tribunal.

11. The excess amount of `3,94,364/- along with proportionate interest and the interest accrued, if any, during the pendency of the Appeal shall be returned to the Appellant Insurance Company.

12. Statutory amount of `25,000/-, if any, shall be refunded to the Appellant Insurance Company.

13. The Appeal is allowed in above terms.

14. Pending Applications stand disposed of.

(G.P. MITTAL) JUDGE MARCH 08, 2013 pst