Delhi High Court
Oriental Insurance Company vs Smt Usha Devi & Ors. on 23 April, 2015
Author: G.P. Mittal
$-6
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 23rd April, 2015
+ MAC.APP. 515/2009
ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. S.L. Gupta, Adv. with
Mr. Ram Ashray, Adv.
versus
SMT USHA DEVI & ORS. .... Respondents
Through: Mr. Sukhbir Singh, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
JUDGMENT
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
1. The appeal is for reduction of compensation of `38,17,000/- awarded
by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) in
favour of Respondents no.1 to 5 for the death of Shri Sahender Pal, a
Head Constable working in Delhi Police.
2. On appreciation of evidence, the Claims Tribunal found that the
accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving of truck
bearing registration no.DL-1GA-9165 by Respondent no.6 (Rajesh
Kumar). It further found that the salary of the deceased Sahender Pal
was revised on account of implementation of the Sixth Pay
Commission retrospectively w.e.f. 01.01.2006. The revised salary on
the date of death i.e. 17.11.2007 was found to be 20,087/- per month.
The deceased was aged 43 years and was survived by five legal heirs.
The Claims Tribunal made addition of 50% towards future prospects,
deducted 1/4 towards personal and living expenses and adopted a
multiplier of 14 to compute the loss of dependency at `37,97,000/-.
On adding certain sums towards non-pecuniary damages, an overall
compensation of `38,17,000/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum
was awarded.
3. The following contentions are raised on behalf of the Appellant:-
(i) Sixth Pay Commission was implemented after the death of the
deceased. Revised salary ought not to have been taken into
consideration to compute the loss of dependency. Reliance is
placed on Sarla Verma (Smt.) & Ors. v. Delhi Transport
Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121;
(ii) The Claims Tribunal erred in granting future prospects to the
extent of 50%. It should have been 30%;
(iii) Personal deductions ought to have been 1/3 as against 1/4 taken
by the Claims Tribunal;
(iv) Family pension and other benefits granted on account of death
ought to have been deducted from the compensation awarded;
(v) Income tax was not deducted from the salary of the deceased;
and
(vi) Loss of consortium awarded @ `10,000/- is high.
INCOME OF THE DECEASED
4. It is not in dispute that Sixth Pay Commission was implemented for
the personnel of Delhi Police retrospectively w.e.f. 01.01.2006 as in
the case of all Central Government employees and the employees of
the Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi. Of course, the Sixth Pay Commission
was implemented after the date of death, yet the salary at the time of
death was revised retrospectively which became payable to the
deceased. Obviously, all the employees whether alive or dead would
be paid arrears on account of implementation of Sixth Pay
Commission retrospectively w.e.f. 01.01.2006. Similarly, the legal
heirs were also paid arrears on the salary @ `20,087/-. Thus, the
salary of the deceased at the time of his death shall be taken as
`20,087/- per month. The contention raised on behalf of the Appellant
that the revised salary should not have been taken into consideration
and reliance on Sarla Verma (Smt.) (supra) is misconceived.
5. Admittedly, deceased was aged 43 years at the time of his death in the
accident on 17.11.2007. The Claims Tribunal awarded 50% increase
towards future prospects which was not permissible. As per the age of
the deceased addition towards future prospects ought to have been
only 30% in view of Sarla Verma (Smt.) (supra).
6. The deceased was survived by five legal heirs. Two sons of the
deceased were major who were in the process of settling in life and in
their career. Therefore, even if one of the sons is excluded, deduction
towards personal and living expenses will be 1/4.
7. It is well settled that deduction towards liability of income tax ought to
have been made by the Claims Tribunal before computing the loss of
dependency. The component of House Rent Allowance was non-
taxable. In the Assessment Year 2008-2009, excluding the component
of HRA, there was liability of income tax of `4,000/- per annum.
8. The loss of dependency therefore, comes to `32,35,650/- (20,087/- x
12 - `4,000/- (income tax) + 30% x 3/4 x14).
9. In view of the three Judge Bench decision of the Supreme Court in
Rajesh & Ors. v. Rajbir Singh & Ors., (2013) 9 SCC 54, Respondents
no.1 to 5 are 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.
10. The overall compensation, therefore, comes to `34,70,650/-.
11. The compensation is accordingly reduced by `3,46,350/-.
12. By an order dated 22.10.2009, a sum of `22,25,000/- was ordered to
be deposited in UCO Bank, Delhi High Court Branch, New Delhi.
Balance amount along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date
of filing of the Claim Petition upto the date of the deposit, shall be
deposited in UCO Bank, Delhi High Court Branch, New Delhi within
four weeks, failing which Respondents no.1 to 5 shall be entitled to
interest @ 12% per annum.
APPORTIONMENT
13. Share of the Respondents is accordingly re-computed as under:-
(i) Respondent no.1, Usha Devi (widow): `20,00,000/- (along with
proportionate interest)
(ii) Respondent no.2: `4,00,000/- (along with proportionate
interest)
(iii) Respondent no.3: `4,00,000/- (along with proportionate
interest)
(iv) Respondent no.4: `4,00,000/- (along with proportionate
interest)
(v) Respondent no.5, (mother): `2,70,650/- (along with
proportionate interest).
14. By an order dated 07.12.2009 deposits were held for various periods
which seems to be over in case of Respondents no.1 to 5. The amount
as stated in para 3 of the order dated 07.12.2009 in favour of
Respondents no.2 to 5, if not released already shall be released
forthwith.
15. The amount payable to Respondent no.1 was to be released in
December, 2016. Therefore, another sum of ` 4,00,000/- shall be
released in favour of Respondent no.1 immediately. Balance amount
shall be held in Fixed Deposit for a period of 2 years and 4 years in
equal proportion.
16. The balance amount held payable to Respondents no.2 to 5 shall be
held in fixed deposit for a period of one year.
17. The appeal is allowed in above terms.
18. Pending application also stands disposed of.
19. Statutory amount, if any, deposited shall be refunded to the Appellant
on deposit of the balance amount.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
APRIL 23, 2015
vk
