Delhi High Court
Asha Devi & Ors vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. on 29 January, 2015
Author: G.P. Mittal
$- 9
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on:29th January, 2015
+ MAC.APP. 897/2012
ASHA DEVI & ORS ..... Appellants
Through: Mr. I.C. Mishra with Mr. Phool
Singh, Advocates.
versus
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. A.K. Soni, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
1. The appeal arises out of judgment dated 29.6.2011 passed by
the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) whereby
compensation of Rs.40,76,760/- was awarded in favour of the
Appellants for the death of Vikas Singh who died in a motor vehicular
accident which occurred on 11.2.2008.
2. The Claims Tribunal took the salary of deceased Vikas Singh as
Rs.25,000/-, added 50% towards future prospects and deducted 30%
towards income tax to compute the loss of dependency.
3. It is urged by the learned counsel for the Appellants that
liability towards income tax on a salary of Rs.25,000/- to the extent of
30% was not justified.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondent
Insurance Company urges that as per the salary certificate, deceased
Vikas Singh was getting a salary of Rs.25,000/- per month which
included a sum of Rs.3500/- towards conveyance allowance which
ought to have been deducted while computing the loss of dependency.
5. Deceased Vikas Singh was employed with M/s Chariot Infotech
Pvt. Ltd.. As per the salary certificate dated 1.4.2005, in the total
salary of Rs.15,000/-, he was being paid conveyance allowance of
Rs.3000/-. His salary was revised from 1.4.2007. Again in the salary
of Rs.20,000/-, a sum of Rs.3000/- was paid towards conveyance
allowance. On further revision of salary with effect from 1.8.2007,
deceased Vikas Singh was getting a sum of Rs.3500/- towards
conveyance allowance. This was an expenditure incidental to
employment, which to my mind ought to have been deducted. At the
same time, deduction towards income tax to the extent of 30% was not
justified because in the assessment year 2008-09, income up to
Rs.1,60,000/- was exempted from tax and income from Rs.1,60,000/-
to Rs. 3 lakhs was subject to only 10% tax. Thus, while deducting a
sum of Rs.3500/- from the gross salary, the net salary for the purposes
of computing the loss of dependency comes to Rs.21,500/-. In other
words, the annual salary would be Rs.2,58,000/-. There would be
liability of income tax to the extent of Rs.10,000/-. Adding 50%
towards future prospects, deducting 1/4th towards personal and living
expenses and applying multiplier of 17, the loss of dependency would
come to Rs.47,43,000/-.
6. In terms of judgment of Supreme Court in Rajesh & Ors. v.
Rajbir Singh & Ors., (2013) 9 SCC 54, I would further add a sum of
Rs.1 lakh each towards loss of love and affection and loss of
consortium. Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.10,000/-
towards loss to estate. The overall compensation, thus, comes to
Rs.49,78,000/-. Hence, the compensation is enhanced by
Rs.9,01,240/- which shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum. Out of
the enhanced compensation, 15% shall be payable to each of
Appellants no. 2 to 4. Rest 55% shall be payable to Appellant no.1
along with proportionate interest. The amount payable to Appellants
no. 2 and 3 shall be held in fixed deposit till they attain the age of 18
years, whereas 75% of the enhanced compensation payable to
Appellant no.1 shall be held in fixed deposit for a period of 2, 4 and 6
years in equal proportions. Rest shall be released to the Appellant
no.1 on deposit. 50% of the enhanced compensation awarded to
Appellant no.4 shall be held in fixed deposit for a period of one year.
Rest shall be released to her on deposit. The enhanced compensation
shall be deposited with the Claims Tribunal within four weeks. The
Appellants shall be entitled to apply for pre-mature release of the
compensation to the Claims Tribunal for the educational need of
Appellants no. 2 and 3.
7. The appeal is disposed of in above terms.
8. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
JANUARY 29th , 2015
srb
