Delhi High Court
Reliance General Insurance Co Ltd vs Nirmala Devi & Ors on 11 May, 2016
$~33
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 11.05.2016
+ MAC.APP. 966/2014 and CM No.17379/2016 and 17692/2014
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. A.K. Soni, Advocate
versus
NIRMALA DEVI & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Manmohan Yadav, Adv. for R-1 to
3
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT
R.K.GAUBA, J (ORAL):
1. Surender Kumar, employed as a driver with Delhi Transport
Corporation (DTC) suffered injuries in a motor vehicular accident that
occurred on 12.12.2012 involving Chevrolet Beat Car bearing registration
no.DL-10CB-3547 (car) and died in the consequence. The first to third
respondents (claimants) instituted an accident claim case (MACT case
no.142/2013) on 15.05.2013 seeking compensation under Sections 140 and
166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (M.V. Act) impleading the appellant
insurance company (insurer) and the fourth respondent (the driver-cum-
owner of the offending vehicle) as respondents.
2. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (tribunal), by judgment dated
06.08.2014, upheld the case that the accident had occurred due to negligent
driving of the offending vehicle, this finding having been returned on the
basis of testimony of Mr. Jitender Yadav (PW-3). The tribunal assessed the
compensation in the sum of Rs.37,41,580/- and awarded it with interest at
the rate of 7.5% p.a. in favour of the claimants, the said amount being
inclusive of Rs.35,06,580/- calculated as loss of dependency.
3. The insurer, which has been burdened with the liability to pay, is in
appeal questioning the finding on the issue of negligence and also the
calculation of loss of dependency. Its prime contentions are that the element
of future prospects of increase to the extent of 15% added over and above
the salary accruing from service with DTC was improper in view of the age
(more than 55 years) of the deceased. It is further the contention that having
regard to the age, the multiplier of 9 would have applied. The insurer also
submits that the deduction on account of personal and living expenses to the
extent of 1/3 only was improper as the son and daughter (second and third
respondent) are major and the daughter is married. It is, however, noted that
the tribunals had apportioned the compensation in favour of the said son and
daughter as well.
4. The contention against the finding on negligence is frivolous for the
simple reason the evidence of PW-3 was not contested by any evidence in
rebuttal. The deposition of PW-3 cannot be disbelieved only because he did
not lodge a report with the police about the accident on the said very date.
5. The learned counsel for the claimant fairly conceded that the future
prospects could not have been added and the multiplier of 9 should have
been applied in view of the age of the deceased [per dictum in Sarla Verma
(Smt.) & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121)].
6. The counsel for the insurance company further points out that in
calculation of loss of dependency, the liability towards income tax also has
to be kept out. This submission is also conceded by the claimants. It is
noted that the tribunal found that the annual salary of the deceased was
`4,15,794/-. Since the accident had occurred on 12.12.2012, this would
pertain to the financial year 2012-2013. Having regard to the rates of
income tax in force for the said financial year, `30,000/- is deducted on
account of the Income Tax liability. By this reckoning, the annual income
on which dependency loss is to be calculated comes to (`4,15,794/- -
`30,000/-) = `3,85,794/-.
7. This court does not accept the contention of the appellant about the
deduction on account of personal and living expenses. The financial
dependency is not the only dependency. Thus the loss of dependency is
calculated as `(3,85,794/- x 2 / 3 x 9) `23,14,764/-, rounded off to
`23,15,000/-. Adding `2,35,000/- towards non pecuniary heads of damages,
the total compensation in the case is computed as (`23,15,000 +
`2,35,000/-) `25,50,000/-.
8. Following the consistent view taken by this court, the rate of interest
is increased to 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the petition till realization.
The award is modified accordingly.
9. It is noted that the tribunal had apportioned the compensation awarded
by it by specifying the amounts falling to the share of the three claimants.
By order dated 31.10.2014, the insurance company had been directed to
deposit the entire awarded amount with accumulated interest with the
Registrar General within the period specified from which 50% was allowed
to be recovered, the balance kept in fixed deposit with the UCO Bank, Delhi
High Court branch, New Delhi, initially for a period of one year to be
renewed from time to time. Since the award has been reduced, it is directed
that the amounts already released in favour of the second and third
respondents (i.e. son and daughter) shall be treated as their respective shares,
the entire balance now payable to be released in favour of the first
respondent (wife) alone.
10. The Registrar General shall calculate the amount payable to the first
respondent in terms of these directions and release the same from out of the
deposit held refunding the excess with statutory deposit to the insurance
company.
11. The appeal and the pending applications are disposed of.
R.K. GAUBA
(JUDGE)
MAY 11, 2016
yg
