Delhi High Court
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. vs Meera Devi & Ors. on 19 January, 2015
Author: G.P. Mittal
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 19 January, 2015
+ MAC.APP.1088/2011
ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. ...... Appellant
Through: Mr. A.K. Soni, Adv.
versus
MEERA DEVI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Adv. with
Mr. Vittan Khan, Adv. for R-1 & R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
1. The Appellant Oriental Insurance Company Limited impugns the
judgment dated 07.09.2011 passed by the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) whereby a compensation of
Rs.32,39,124/- was awarded in favour of Respondents no.1 and 2.
2. At the time of hearing of the appeal, the only ground of challenge
raised by the learned counsel for the Appellant is that addition of
100% towards future prospects was made. As per Sarla Verma (Smt.)
& Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121 this
ought to have been confined to 50%. It is further stated that the liability
of income tax was not deducted from the income of the deceased while
computing compensation.
3. Learned counsel for Respondents no.1 and 2 on the other hand, has
submitted that the Respondents produced evidence to prove that
ultimately the deceased could have been promoted as Deputy General
Manager and his salary could have been raised in the pay scale of
Rs.37,000/- to Rs.67,000/-. It is therefore, submitted that the Claims
Tribunal was justified in granting 100% increase towards future
prospects.
4. In Sarla Verma (Smt.) & Ors. (supra), it was laid down that to bring
uniformity in grant of compensation, addition of 50% has to be granted
where the deceased is a permanent employee having future prospects. In
the instant case, the deceased was working as a Junior Engineer in Delhi
Transco. Thus, addition of 50% only could have been made.
5. I tend to agree with the learned counsel for the Appellant that the
deceased's gross salary after deduction of transport allowance was
Rs.2,71,992/- . Any income beyond Rs.1,60,000/- in the Assessment
Year 2010-2011 was subject to income tax. There was liability of
income tax of about Rs.11,000/- on this amount.
6. The loss of dependency thus, comes to Rs. 25,44,672/- {2,71,992/- -
Rs.11,000/- (income tax) + 50% x 1/2 x 13 (as per the age of the mother
of the deceased)}.
7. The Claims Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards loss of
love and affection and Rs.20,000/- towards funeral expenses. The
same needs to be raised to Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.25,000/- respectively
in view of the judgment in Rajesh & Ors. v. Rajbir Singh & Ors.,
(2013) 9 SCC 54.
8. The Claimants are further entitled to a notional sum of Rs.10,000/-
towards loss to estate.
9. The revised compensation is tabulated as under:-
Sl. Compensation under various Awarded by Awarded by
heads the Claims this Court
No. Tribunal
1. Loss of Dependency 31,79,124/- 25,44,672/-
2. Loss of Love and Affection 40,000/- 1,00,000/-
3. Funeral Expenses 20,000/- 25,000/-
4. Loss of Estate -- 10,000/-
Total Rs.32,39,124/- Rs.26,79,672/-
10. The overall compensation is hence, reduced from Rs.32,39,124/- to
Rs. 26,79,672/-.
11. The excess compensation of Rs.5,59,452/- along with proportionate
interest shall be refunded to the Appellant Insurance Company.
12. The compensation awarded by this Court shall be released/held in
fixed deposit in favour of Respondents no.1 and 2 in the proportion as
directed by the Claims Tribunal.
13. The statutory amount of `25,000/- along with interest, if any, shall
also be refunded to the Appellant Insurance Company.
14. The appeal is allowed in above terms.
15. Pending applications also stand disposed of.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
JANUARY 19, 2015
vk
