Delhi High Court
New India Assurance Co Ltd vs Manjeet Kaur & Ors on 19 May, 2016
$~7
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 19.05.2016
+ MAC.APP. 695/2013
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD
..... Appellant
Through Mr. L K Tyagi, Adv.
versus
MANJEET KAUR & ORS
..... Respondent
Through Proxy counsel
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT
R.K.GAUBA, J (ORAL):
1. Amardeep Singh, 35 years old, employed as a technical engineer with
Hewlett Packward India Sales Ltd. died as a result of injuries suffered in a
motor vehicular accident that occurred on 14.03.2010 involving negligent
driving of a truck bearing registration No.RJ 02G 7547. It appears that at
the time of the accident, Amardeep Singh was driving car bearing
registration No.DL 4CAG 6911 in which his wife Harneet Kaur and
daughter Amneet Kaur were also travelling. Harneet Kaur and Amneet
Kaur, the wife and daughter, also perished in the same accident. The
parents, first and second respondents (the claimants), surviving members of
the family, instituted an accident claim case (MACT No.962/10) on
14.07.2010 seeking compensation under Sections 166 & 140 of Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 (MV Act) impleading the appellant insurance company
(insurer), the driver and owner of the offending vehicle as respondents. It is
admitted by the insurer that the offending vehicle was insured against third
party risk with it for the period in question.
2. At the inquiry, evidence was led and, by judgment dated 22.05.2013,
the motor accident claims tribunal (tribunal) returned a finding that the
accident and death had occurred due to negligent driving of the offending
vehicle. This finding has attained finality as it was not challenged further.
The tribunal awarded compensation in the sum of ₹1,71,08,992/- with
interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition and directed
the insurer to pay after deducting the amount of ₹50,000/- that had been
paid earlier under Section 140 of MV Act.
3. The insurer is in appeal questioning the calculation of loss of
dependency in the sum of ₹1,69,48,992/- as done by the tribunal. It is noted
that on the basis of evidence led, the tribunal found that the deceased, aged
35 years, was earning ₹88,276/- per month as salary from Hewlett
Packward India Sales Ltd. Having regard to the terms of engagement with
the said employer, the tribunal added the element of future of prospects of
increase of 50% and thus computed the income notionally at ₹1,32,414/-
from which the dependency loss had to be worked out. It deducted 1/3rd of
the income towards personal & living expenses and applied the multiplier of
16, according to the age of the deceased, to calculate the loss of dependency.
4. The appellant (insurer) submits that the tribunal fell into error by
making deduction only to the extent of 1/3rd ignoring the fact that the father,
earning ₹35,000/- as pension could not be a dependant and further that the
wife and daughter having died, the dependency loss which could be claimed
by the mother would not be to the extent of 2/3rd of the earning of the
deceased. It is also submitted by the insurer that the age of the mother being
58 years at the time of the death, the multiplier of 9 should have been
applied. The insurer further points out that in calculations, the tribunal did
not make any deduction towards the income tax liability.
5. Per contra, it is argued by the claimants that the calculation made by
the tribunal is in accord with the decision in Sarla Verma (Smt.) & Ors. v.
Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121 and, therefore,
there is no occasion for any interference.
6. The submissions of the insurer about errors in the calculation of loss
of dependency deserve to be accepted. The tribunal could not have made
the calculation without taking into account the liability towards income tax.
Further, it cannot be said that the surviving mother would be dependent on
2/3rd of the income of the deceased. The income provided by the deceased
was being shared not only by her but also by the wife and daughter who,
unfortunately, have also died. In these circumstances, the fair suggestion of
the counsel for the insurer that the case be treated at par with those of
bachelors and deduction to the extent of 50% towards personal & living
expenses commends acceptance.
7. Further, it is well settled that the multiplier has to be adopted as per
the age of the deceased or claimants, whichever is higher. [G.M. Kerela
SRTC vs Susamma Thomas (1994) 2 SCC 176; U.P.S.R.T.C. vs Trilok
Chandra (1996) 4 SCC 362; New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Charlie AIR
2005 SC 2157; New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Shanti Pathak (Smt.) &
Ors., (2007) 10 SCC 1; Ramesh Singh & Anr. vs Satbir Singh & Anr. (2008)
2 SCC 667; National Insurance Company Ltd. vs Shyam Singh & Ors.
(2011) 7 SCC 65; Ashwinbhai Jayantilal Modi vs Ramkaran Ramchandra
Sharma & Anr. (2015) 2 SCC 180] In these circumstances, the dependency
loss has to be calculated on the multiplier of 9.
8. Having regard to the annual income of the deceased (88,276 x 12)
₹10,59,312/-, the liability towards income tax works out approximately in
the sum of ₹1,82,000/-. The net income, thus, would be (10,59,312 -
1,82,000) ₹8,77,312/-. Adding the component of future prospects of
increase to the extent of 50%, the notional net income is computed as
(8,77,312 x 150 ÷ 100) ₹13,15,968/-. After deducting one-half and
applying the multiplier of 9, the dependency loss is calculated as (13,15,968
÷ 2 x 9) ₹59,21,856/- rounded off to ₹59,22,000/-. Adding the non-
pecuniary damages, awarded by the tribunal, the total compensation payable
in the case is calculated as (59,22,000 + 1,60,000) ₹60,82,000/-. The
amounts of ₹50,000/- paid under the interim award shall now be suitably
adjusted. The balance shall be payable to the claimant with interest as
levied by the tribunal.
9. The tribunal by the impugned judgment had released only ₹10,000/-
in cash to the claimant mother keeping the entire balance in fixed deposit
receipt in her name with State Bank of India, Tis Hazari branch for a period
of five years with right to draw monthly interest.
10. By order dated 30.07.2013, the insurance company had been directed
to deposit 50% of the awarded amount with up-to-date interest with the
Registrar General of this Court which was allowed to be released to her.
Having regard to the directions in the impugned judgment, the substantial
part of the said deposited amount would still be lying in fixed deposit
receipt. The Registrar shall now calculate the amount payable to the
claimant in terms of the modified award and release the same to them in
accordance with the directions in the impugned judgment, refunding the
excess to the insurance company with statutory deposit, if made. For such
purposes, he may issue appropriate directions to the Banks, where the fixed
deposits are held.
11. The appeal is disposed of in above terms.
(R.K. GAUBA)
JUDGE
MAY 19, 2016
VLD
