Delhi High Court
Iffco Tokio Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd. vs Sheela & Ors. on 27 January, 2015
Author: G.P. Mittal
$-10
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 27th January, 2015
+ MAC.APP. 1183/2012
IFFCO TOKIO GEN. INS. CO. LTD. ..... Appellant
Through: Ms. Shantha Devi Raman,
Advocate with Mr. Garud M.V.,
Advocate
versus
SHEELA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Akhilesh Arora, Advocate
for Respondents no.1 to 6.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
JUDGMENT
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
1. There is twin challenge to the judgment dated 30.07.2012
passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims
Tribunal) whereby compensation of Rs.43,75,500/- was
awarded for the death of Jai Bhagwan, who died in a motor
vehicular accident which occurred on 14.05.2007 at 10:45 a.m.
2. It is stated that the income tax on the income ought to have been
deducted before computing the loss of dependency and that
there should have been deduction of 1/5th towards personal and
living expenses in view of the authoritative pronouncement in
Sarla Verma (Smt.) & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation &
Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121.
3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Respondents
support the impugned judgment and urges that the Claims
Tribunal relied upon Santosh Devi v. National Insurance
Company Ltd. & Ors., (2012) 6 SCC 421 to deduct 1/10th
towards personal and living expenses. It is urged that
compensation awarded towards loss of love and affection was
on the lower side and no compensation was awarded towards
loss of consortium.
4. Sarla Verma(supra) had examined in detail the question of
deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased
while computing the loss of dependency. The observations of the
Supreme Court in Santosh Devi shall be confined to the facts of
that case only and Sarla Verma(supra) shall be taken as a binding
precedent in view of the Constitutional Bench judgment of the
Supreme Court in Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community &
Anr. v. State of Maharashtra & Anr., (2005) 2 SCC 673 as well as
in Safiya Bee v. Mohd. Vajahath Hussain @ Fasi, (2011) 2 SCC
94 and Union of India & Ors. v. S.K. Kapoor, (2011) 4 SCC
589. Therefore, the deduction of personal and living expenses
ought to have been 1/5th.
5. The learned counsel for the Respondents(claimants) concedes
that there should have been deduction of Income Tax on the
gross income of the deceased for the purpose of computation of
the multiplicand.
6. In view of this, the loss of dependency comes to Rs.34,22,014/-
(Rs.2,13,096/- (annual income) - Rs.10,310/- (Income Tax) +
50% x 3/4 x 15). At the same time, the Respondents
(claimants) were entitled to a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each
towards loss of love and affection and loss of consortium, while
the compensation towards loss to estate of Rs.10,000/- and
funeral expenses of Rs.25,000/- are maintained.
7. The compensation is hence, reduced by Rs.7,18,487/-. The
overall compensation thus, comes to Rs.36,57,014/-.
8. The Appellant was directed to deposit 70% of the award amount
by an order dated 09.11.2012 of this Court. The balance
amount along with the proportionate interest shall be deposited
by the Appellant Insurance Company within four weeks with
the Claims Tribunal and shall be held in Fixed Deposit/released
in terms of the orders passed by the Claims Tribunal.
9. The appeal is disposed of in above terms.
10. Pending applications also stand disposed of.
11. Statutory amount of Rs.25,000/-, if any, shall also be refunded
to the Appellant Insurance Company.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
JANUARY 27, 2015
pst
