Chola Mandalam Ms General In. Co. ... vs Smt. Sunita Devi & Ors.
2016 Latest Caselaw 1859 Del

$~7
*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                               Date of Decision: 8th March, 2016
+      MAC APPEAL No.1051/2012 & CM 16664/2012

       CHOLA MANDALAM MS GENERAL IN. CO. LTD..... Appellant
                  Through: Ms. Suman Bagga & Mr. Pankaj
                           Gupta, Advs.
                  Versus
    SMT. SUNITA DEVI & ORS.                .... Respondents
                  Through: Mr. S.N. Parashar, Adv. for R-1 & 2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
                         JUDGMENT

R.K.GAUBA, J (ORAL):

1. Rajnish Ranjan died as a result of injuries suffered in a motor vehicular accident that occurred at about 7.15 a.m. on 08.05.2011 involving truck bearing registration No. RJ 32GA 4605. On the claim petition under Sections 166 and 140 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MV Act) registered as MACT case No. 190/2011, the motor accident claims tribunal (the tribunal) by judgment dated 31.07.2012 awarded compensation in the total sum of ₹ 28,05,852/- with interest @ 9 % per annum from the date of filing of the petition till its deposit. In calculating the said amount payable as compensation, the tribunal found, on inquiry, the gross income of the deceased to be ₹ 2,25,304/- per annum from his employment with DT Cinema, DLF Gurgaon. The tribunal, however, discounted two allowances (conveyance allowance at ₹ 1,600 per month and medical reimbursement at ₹ 596/-) so as to take the net income of ₹ 1,98,952/- and calculated the loss

of dependency by adding the element of 50% on prospective increase, deducting 50% towards personal & living expenses and by adopting the multiplier of 18, on the basis of age of the deceased.

2. The insurance company questions the calculation of compensation towards loss of dependency on the ground that future prospects could not have been added and that the multiplier should have been adopted on the basis of age of the parents who are the claimants, since the deceased was a bachelor. Per contra, the claimants submits that the deduction of the two aforementioned allowances was incorrect and improper.

3. Having heard both sides, this Court agrees with the submissions of the claimants that the deduction of the allowances in question was not proper (see MAC Appeal No. 458/2007 New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Archana Santoshi & Ors. decided on 4th March, 2016.)

4. In this view, the annual income of the deceased should have been taken in the sum of ` 2,25,304/- only. Given the fact that the claimant was a regular employee with DT Cinema, DLF Gurgaon, having regard to his age and status in the said company, the element of future prospects was correctly added. It, however, needs to be recomputed since the basis of the income has undergone a change. The income on which the loss of dependency needs to be worked out, thus, is computed at (2,25,304 X 150 /100) ` 3,37,956/-.

5. There is substance in the submission of the insurance company that the age of the parents should have been the basis for choice of multiplier. As per the documents on record, the mother and father of the deceased were 46 years and 53 years respectively on the date of accident. Therefore, the

average age being 49 years, the appropriate multiplier would be 13, since 50% is to be deducted towards personal and living expenses, the loss of annual dependency works out at (3,37,956/2 X 13) ` 21,96,714/-. The tribunal had also granted ` 1,20,000/- under the non-pecuniary heads of damages i.e. loss of love & affection, estate and cremation. Adding the said components, the total compensation is calculated at ` 23,16,714/- rounded off to `23,17,000/- . It shall carry interest @ 9 % per annum as directed by the tribunal.

6. The compensation modified in above terms shall be apportioned as per the directions in the impugned judgment. By order dated 21.09.2012, the insurance company was directed to deposit 50% of the awarded compensation with proportionate interest with the tribunal which was to be kept in a fixed deposit receipt initially for a period of six months to be renewed from time to time. The said deposit was, however, allowed to be released by order dated 07.02.2013.

7. The insurance company is now directed to deposit the balance payable to the claimants in terms of the above modification within 30 days of this order whereupon it shall be released to the claimants.

8. Statutory deposit, if made, shall be refunded.

9. The appeal is disposed of in above terms.

R.K. GAUBA (JUDGE) MARCH 08, 2016/nk