Delhi High Court
Oriental Insurance Co Ltd vs Sameena Khatoon & Ors. on 22 April, 2015
Author: G.P. Mittal
$-20
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 22nd April, 2015
+ MAC.APP. 797/2010
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Amit Gaur, Adv.
versus
SAMEENA KHATOON & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Nemo.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
JUDGMENT
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
1. The appeal is for reduction of compensation of `36,04,604/- awarded
by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) in
favour of Respondents no.1 to 5 for the death of Anwar Ahmed, who
suffered fatal injuries in a motor vehicular accident which occurred on
12.09.2007.
2. The following contentions are raised on behalf of the Appellant
Insurance Company:-
(i) The deceased was getting conveyance allowance of `6,000/- per
month which formed a part of his salary of `35,000/- per month.
The conveyance allowance ought to have been deducted from
the salary for the purpose of computation of loss of dependency;
(ii) The Claims Tribunal deducted 1/4 towards personal and living
expenses considering all the legal representatives of the
deceased as financially dependant upon him. Respondent no.2
Israr Ahmed and Respondent no.3 Istkhar Ahmad, both sons of
deceased Anwar Ahmed were aged about 22 and 24 years
respectively. They being major sons were not financially
dependant upon the deceased. Deduction towards personal and
living expenses should have been therefore made 1/3 instead of
1/4; and
(iii) The income earned by the deceased was taxable. No deduction
towards income tax was made by the Claims Tribunal while
computing the loss of dependency.
3. I have the Trial Court Record before me. The deceased was getting a
total salary of `35,000/- p.m. which included a sum of `9,000/-
towards House Rent Allowance (HRA) and `6,000/- towards
Conveyance Allowance. He was working as a Pattern Master with
M/s. Neetee Clothing Pvt. Ltd., Shanti Niketan, New Delhi.
4. Since the deceased had a large family to support, it can very well be
said that the deceased may have been very conservative in spending
the amount of conveyance allowance and the entire amount of
`6,000/- would not have been spent on reporting for work. In view of
this, I will take a sum of `2,000/- per month as being spent on
conveyance and `4,000/- being utilised by the deceased for himself as
well as for the benefit of his family members.
5. The deceased was being paid a sum of `9,000/- towards HRA. HRA
amount equaling 40% of the basic pay will be tax free, if the amount
was being spent for provision of a house. Thus, a sum of `1,000/- only
out of HRA was taxable. Thus, if the amount of `8,000/- per month is
deducted for the purpose of calculation of the income tax, still any
income beyond `1,50,000/- entails the liability to pay income tax. In
view of the above discussion, there would be a liability of about
`5,000/- towards payment of income tax.
6. Of course, Respondents no.2 to 4 were the major sons of deceased
Anwar Ahmed. It goes without saying that even after attaining
majority, the children still require financial support from the parents
and even if one of the sons, who was aged 24-25 years old is taken to
be financial independent, still deduction towards personal and living
expenses will be 1/4. The loss of dependency, in view of the above
discussion will come to `32,25,750/- (35,000/- x 12 - 24,000/-
(conveyance) - `5,000/- (income tax) x 3/4 x 11 (deceased being 53
years).
7. In addition, Respondents no.1 to 5 will be entitled to a sum of
`1,00,000/- each towards loss of love and affection and loss of
consortium, `25,000/- towards funeral expenses and `10,000/-
towards loss to estate.
8. The overall compensation therefore comes to `34,60,750/-.
9. The compensation payable shall be disbursed in favour of
Respondents no.1 to 5 in terms of the order passed by the Claims
Tribunal.
10. The excess amount of `1,43,854/- along with interest if any earned on
the excess amount, shall be refunded to the Appellant Insurance
Company.
11. The appeal is allowed in above terms.
12. Pending applications also stand disposed of.
13. Statutory amount, if any, deposited shall also be refunded to the
Appellant Insurance Company.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
APRIL 22, 2015
vk
