Chanderwati & Ors. vs National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.
2015 Latest Caselaw 3721 Del

$-34
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                            Decided on: 07th May, 2015
+       MAC.APP. 397/2015

        CHANDERWATI & ORS.
                                                      ..... Appellants
                             Through:   Mr. Anshuman Bal, Advocate

                    versus

        NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ORS.
                                          ..... Respondents
                     Through: Mr. Pankaj Seth, Advocate for
                              Respondent no.1.

        CORAM:
        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL

                             JUDGMENT

G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)

1. The Appellants have filed this appeal aggrieved with the

quantum of compensation of Rs.29,62,425/- awarded by the

Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Claims Tribunal) for the

death of Bahori Lal Sharma aged 57 years who was working as

a Head Line Man in BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. and who

suffered fatal injuries in a motor vehicular accident which

occurred on 20.04.2013.

2. During inquiry before the Claims Tribunal, it was proved that

the deceased was getting a gross salary of Rs.43,710/- per

month, which included a sum of Rs.2,752/- towards Transport

Allowance(TA), Rs.220/- towards Cycle Conveyance and

Rs.500/- towards Tea Allowance. The Claims Tribunal

deducted this sum of about Rs.3,472/- in toto being for the

personal benefit of the deceased employee and took the

deceased's salary as Rs.40,238/- per month thus, holding

deceased's annual income for computation of loss of

dependency to be Rs.4,82,856/-. After deduction of

Rs.28,285/- towards Income Tax and 1/3 towards personal and

living expenses and applying the multiplier of 9 as per the age

of the deceased, the loss of dependency was computed to be

Rs.27,27,423/-. The Claims Tribunal further awarded a sum of

Rs.1,00,000/- each towards the loss of love and affection and

loss of consortium, Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses and

Rs.10,000/- towards loss to estate to grant a total compensation

of Rs.29,62,423/-(rounded off to Rs.29,62,425/-) payable to the

Appellants.

3. It is urged by the learned counsel for the Appellants that TA,

Cycle Conveyance and Tea Allowance were for the benefit of

employee's family as well and not for the benefit of only the

employee. It is contended that since in the salary, a sum of

about Rs.5,000/- was being received towards House Rent

Allowance(HRA), the same will be non-taxable and the liability

of Rs.28,285/- towards Income Tax shall get reduced. No

evidence was led by the Appellants to show that the amount

received towards HRA plus 10% of the pay was being spent

towards payment of the house rent. In view of this, it cannot be

said that HRA was non-taxable. The allowances stated earlier

were not for the benefit of the employee's family but were for

the benefit of the employee only. It may further be noted that

Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 envisages

compensation which is just and reasonable. It is true that at the

age of 57 years, the appropriate multiplier will be 9, but it may

be noted that the deceased was to retire just after three years of

his unfortunate death in the accident. It is well settled that the

compensation awarded should neither be pittance nor a

windfall. In my view, the compensation awarded is just and

reasonable.

4. The appeal being frivolous does not call for any notice to the

Respondents.

5. The appeal is dismissed in limine.

6. Pending applications also stand disposed of.

(G.P. MITTAL) JUDGE MAY 07, 2015 pst