Delhi High Court
Ruchika Arora & Ors vs Ruchika Arora & Ors on 18 May, 2016
$~8 & 10
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 18.05.2016
+ MAC.APP. 980/2013
RUCHIKA ARORA & ORS ..... Appellants
Through: Mr.Nitin Sehgal, Advocate
versus
VINOD KUMAR & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Rakhi Dubey, Advocate for R-3
+ MAC.APP. 1071/2013
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD ..... Appellant
Through: Ms. Rakhi Dubey, Advocate
versus
RUCHIKA ARORA & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Nitin Sehgal, Adv. for R-1 to 4
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT
R.K.GAUBA, J (ORAL):
1. Sumit Arora, then aged 3 months more than 35 years (born on
15.12.1977), engaged in a business of electronics, suffered injuries in a
motor vehicular accident that occurred on 28.03.2013 involving negligent
driving of a motor vehicle bearing registration no.DL-1VA-9723 (offending
vehicle) and died in the consequence. His widow, children and widowed
mother (appellant in MAC 980/2013) instituted an accident claim case (suit
no.228/2013) on 26.04.2013 impleading the driver and owner of the
offending vehicle as parties, in addition to National Insurance Co. Ltd.
(appellant in MACA 1071/2013), it admittedly having issued an insurance
policy covering third party risk for the period in question respecting the
offending vehicle.
2. Upon inquiry, by judgment dated 16.08.2013, the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal (tribunal) upheld the case of the claimants that death had
occurred due to negligent driving of the offending vehicle. This finding has
since attained finality as there was no further challenge thereto.
3. By the aforementioned judgment, the tribunal awarded compensation
in the sum of `50,37,200/- with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date
of filing of the petition in favour of the claimants. The said award included
`1 Lakh each towards loss of consortium and loss of love and affection,
`10,000/- towards loss to estate, `25,000/- towards funeral expenses,
balance `48,02,135/- representing the loss of dependency.
4. The claimants are in appeal (MAC 980/2013) submitting that the
dependency loss has been wrongly calculated on the multiplier of 15,
assuming the age of the deceased as 36 years and thus the age-bracket of 31-
35 as per prescription in Sarla Verma Vs. DTC, 2009 6 SCC 121 should
have been invoked and the multiplier of 16 applied.
5. The insurer, on the other hand, argues on its appeal (MACA
1071/2013) that the tribunal fell into error by adding the component of 50%
of future prospects of increase stating that the progressive rise in income
could not have been inferred only on the basis of the two income tax returns
(ITRs). It is also submitted that the tribunal assessed the income by drawing
an average on the basis of ITRs for three consecutive assessment years (i.e.
2011-2012, 2012-2013 and 2013-2014) ignoring the fact the third ITR (i.e.
for the assessment year 2013-2014) had been filed after the death. It is also
the contention of the insurance company that there has been no complete
loss of income for the dependent family members in as much as the
deceased was in partnership with his brothers in the business of electronics
and, after his death, per the investigation done by the insurer, his family is
still receiving rental income for the premises in use.
6. Arguments have been heard on both sides and the record perused.
7. The last contention of the insurance company may be taken up first.
It needs to be only noted and rejected for two reasons. First, the insurer did
not lead any evidence to show the rental income. Second, even if the family
is receiving rental income against the premises in use by the brothers for
their business, the same would have no effect whatsoever as the ITRs only
spoke of the income from business.
8. There is merit, however, in the submission that the ITR for 2013-2014
(Ex. PW1/3) should not have been acted upon as the same were filed after
the death. It cannot be believed in absence of further corroborative proof
also for the reason that it shows unduly high income as compared to the
ITRs for the previous two assessment years.
9. In the given facts and circumstances, instead of drawing an average,
the last ITR furnished by the deceased (for the assessment year 2012-2013)
should have been taken as the correct benchmark. At the same time, it
cannot be ignored that the comparison even of the two ITRs (i.e. for the
assessment year 2011-2012 and 2012-13) indicates that the income from the
business was on progressive rise. With such irrefutable evidence available
on record, the element of future prospects of increase should not be grudged
by the insurer. [see judgment dated 28.03.2016 in MAC.APP. 548/2013
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kamla & Ors.]
10. Following the dictum in Sarla Verma (supra), and having regard to the
age of the deceased, the assessment of loss of dependency is made on the
income declared for the assessment year 2012-2013 with an element of 50%
on future prospects of increase factored in. Since the number of dependants
was four, 1/4th is deducted towards personal and living expenses. Applying
the multiplier of 16, which would be appropriate given the age of the
deceased, the loss of dependency is recomputed as (`2,62,711/- x 150/100 x
3/4 x 16) `47,28,798/- `47,29,000/-.
11. It is noted that the accident had occurred on 28.03.2013. Following
the view taken by this court in MACA 160/2015, Shriram General
Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Usha & Ors, decided on 05.05.2016, awards of
`1,50,000/- each towards loss of consortium and loss of love and affection
and `50,000/- each towards loss of estate and funeral expenses are added.
Thus, the total compensation in the case comes to (`47,29,000/- + 1,50,000/-
+ `1,50,000/- + `50,000/- + `50,000/-) `51,29,000/-. Needless to add, it
shall carry interest as levied by the tribunal. It shall be apportioned in the
manner ordered by the tribunal in the impugned judgment.
12. The award is modified accordingly.
13. By order dated 22.11.2013 in MACA 1071/2013, insurance company
had been directed to deposit 80% of the awarded amount within the period
specified whereupon 50% was allowed to be released, balance kept in fixed
deposit receipts with the UCO Bank, Delhi High Court Branch, New Delhi
for a period of six months to be renewed periodically. Since the award has
been increased, the balance lying in deposit shall be released forthwith to the
claimants. The insurer shall be obliged to pay the balance of its liability. It
shall do so by making requisite deposit with the tribunal within 30 days
making it available for being released to the claimants.
14. Statutory deposits, if made, shall be refunded.
15. Both appeals (and the pending applications) are disposed of in above
terms.
16. Dasti, as prayed, to both sides.
R.K. GAUBA
(JUDGE)
MAY 18, 2016
yg
