Delhi High Court
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Tejpal Singh & Ors. on 5 May, 2014
Author: Suresh Kait
$~29
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 5th May, 2014
+ MAC.APP.261/2013
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. ..... Appellant
Represented by: Mr. L.K. Tyagi, Advocate.
Versus
TEJPAL SINGH & ORS. .....Respondents
Represented by: Mr. Jayant Pawar with
Mr. Jitender Mehta, Advocates for R-1 & R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
1. Vide the present appeal, the appellant has challenged the award dated
01.12.2012 whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation for an
amount of Rs.25,05,656/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of
filing of the claim petition till realisation of the amount.
2. Mr. L.K. Tyagi, learned counsel appearing for on behalf of appellant
submits that the learned Tribunal has erred in adding 50% in his actual
income towards future prospects, which is contrary to law settled in Sarla
Verma Vs. DTC and Ors., 2009 (6) SCC 121, which has been affirmed by
the Full Bench of the Supreme Court in case of Reshma Kumari and Ors.
Vs. Madan Mohan & Anr., (2013) 9 SCC 65.
3. He further submits that the learned Tribunal also erred in assessing the
income of the deceased as Rs.14,788/- per month while calculating the
compensation. As per the pay slip of the deceased for the month of April,
2012, he was getting Rs.1,960/- on account of conveyance, which was for
his official/ personal use. The accident had taken place on 19.05.2012 thus
the learned Tribunal has erred in not deducting the said amount out of the
total salary of the deceased. Thus the compensation should have been
assessed by taking the net income of the deceased at Rs.12,828/- per month.
4. Learned counsel further argued that the learned Tribunal erred in
applying the multiplier on the basis of age of the deceased who was a
bachelor whereas the multiplier has to be applied as per the age of the
deceased who was 22 years at the time of accident.
5. As far as the issue of future prospects is concerned, this Court has
dealt with it in the case of MACA No.846/2011 titled as ICICI Lombard
General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Angrej Singh & Ors., decided on
30.09.2013. Thus keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case, I
find no merit on this ground.
6. The issue of deduction of the conveyance from the gross salary has
been dealt with by this Court in the case of National Insurance Company
Ltd. Vs. Pushpa Devi & Ors., decided on 06.02.2014 in MAC. APP.
No.455/2013. Thus, I find force in the submission of the learned counsel
for the appellant. Therefore, an amount of Rs.1,960/- is deducted from the
salary of the deceased on account of conveyance. Accordingly, the monthly
income of the deceased is assessed at Rs.12,828/-.
7. As far as the issue of multiplier is concerned, this Court has dealt with
it in the case of Mohd. Hasnain & Ors. Vs. Jagram Meena & Ors. bearing
MAC. APP. No. 152/2014, decided on 24.03.2014, wherein held as under: -
"21. The maximum value of the multiplier is fixed at „18‟,
which is fairly representing the purchasing capacity of a victim in
a stable economy. In the ascertainment of purchasing capacity of
the victim, the age of the claimant has no relevance because of the
fact that it has no nexus with the assessment of the loss of
dependency.
22. Moreover, subsequent to the introduction of Section 163A
and the Second Schedule of the Act, the Apex Court in Trilok
Chandra, introduced a structural change by increasing the
numerical value of multiplier from „16‟to„18‟, whereas it had been
fixed at „16‟as per Susamma Thomas. Specifically, there was no
variation in respect of fundamental premise of „multiplier method‟
as held in Susamma Thomas. In Trilok Chandra, the apex court
has taken the second schedule as a guiding factor.
23. Significantly, the Apex Court in the case of Reshma
Kumari and M. Nag Pal has followed the age of the victim as a
factor for selecting the multiplier. Specifically, in the selection of
multiplier for the age group up to ‟15‟ the Apex Court never
considered the age of the claimants as a relevant factor.
Therefore, this court finds no reason to adopt a different formula
for the victim who is above „15‟ years of age, whereas the relevant
factors have been adopted by the Apex Court such as (i) age of the
deceased (ii) income of the deceased and (iii) number of
dependents. The Apex Court, while formulating the relevant
factors for the assessment of loss of dependency, the age of the
claimants never considered as a factor. Finally, in the assessment
of dependency, the courts / tribunals are computing the
purchasing capacity of the deceased; not the claimants.
Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the age of the
victim is the proper factor for selecting the correct multiplier."
8. Thus, I find no merit in this issue of the appellant.
9. Accordingly, the compensation amount comes as under: -
Sl. Heads of Compensation Compensation
No. Compensation granted by ld. granted by this
Tribunal Court
1. Loss of Rs.23,95,656/- Rs.20,78,136/-
dependency
2. Love and affection Rs. 1,00,000/- Rs. 1,00,000/-
3. Loss of estate Rs. 10,000/- Rs. 10,000/-
TOTAL Rs.25,05,656/- Rs.21,88,136/-
Accordingly, the total compensation amount is assessed at
Rs.21,88,136/-.
10. Resultantly, an amount of Rs.3,17,520/- is reduced (Rs.25,05,656/- -
Rs.21,88,136/-).
11. The appeal is partially allowed.
12. Consequently the statutory amount and the excess amount be released
in favour of the appellant and the balance compensation be released in
favour of the respondents/ claimants in terms of the award dated 01.12.2012.
SURESH KAIT, J.
MAY 05, 2014
hs/sb
