Delhi High Court
Sbi General Insurance Co Ltd vs Sohan Lal & Anr on 19 May, 2016
$~20
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 19.05.2016
+ MAC.APP. 432/2014 & CM No.8184/2014
SBI GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD
..... Appellant
Through Mr. Aman Shanker, Adv.
versus
SOHAN LAL & ANR
..... Respondent
Through None
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT
R.K.GAUBA, J (ORAL):
1. Karamveer, a bachelor, working as an Assistant Professor in Atma
Ram Sanatan Dharma College, New Delhi died in a motor vehicular
accident that occurred on 08.06.2013 involving negligent driving of motor
vehicle bearing registration No.RJ 11 GA 5680 (the offending vehicle). His
parents, first and second respondents (claimants), instituted an accident
claim case (suit No. 443/13) on 26.08.2013 seeking compensation. Upon
inquiry, by judgment dated 09.01.2014, the motor accident claims tribunal
(tribunal) upheld the case about negligent driving having led to the death.
The compensation in the sum of `37,64,538/- was computed and directed to
be paid by the appellant insurance company (insurer) with interest at 9% per
annum from the date of filing of the petition.
2. The insurer, though admitting its liability to indemnify, has come in
appeal questioning the computation of the compensation. It is argued that
the tribunal wrongly calculated the loss of dependency on the basis of salary
certificate dated 02.07.2013 (page 127 of the tribunal's record) as arrears to
the extent of `883/- on account of transport allowance were not deducted. It
is further pointed out that for calculating the net income the income tax
liability also had to be properly calculated and thereafter deducted. Further,
it is argued that the tribunal wrongly chose the multiplier of 11 on the basis
of age only of the mother, ignoring the fact that the claim was on behalf of
both the parents. It is pointed out from the record that the date of birth of
the father was 18.03.1954 and second respondent (mother) was four years
younger to him. The counsel submits on the average age of 56 years of both
the parents, the proper multiplier to be applied was 9.
3. The submission of the counsel for the insurer with regard to the need
for deduction of arrears also of transport allowance (including what was
noticed by the tribunal in the impugned judgment) besides the amount
payable as income tax is correct. Thus, deducting Rs.883/- on account of
transport arrears, in addition to Rs.3,135/- and Rs.5,964/- paid as arrears on
account of HRA and DA respectively, the net income of the deceased comes
to Rs.36,279. The annual income would, thus, stand calculated at (36,279 x
12) Rs.4,35,348/-. Having regard to the rate of income tax for the
corresponding financial year 2013-14, the income upto Rs.2 lakh being
exempt, the income tax liability works out to Rs.23,535/-. The net income,
thus, comes to (4,35,348 - 23,535) Rs.4,11,813/-.
4. Adding the element of future prospects to the extent of 50%
(inasmuch as the deceased was a regular employee where there would be
progressive rise in income), and upon deduction of 50% towards personal
and living expenses, applying the multiplier of 9, the loss of dependency
comes to (4,11813 x 150 ÷ 100 ÷ 2 x 9) Rs.27,79,738/- rounded off to
Rs.27,80,000/-.
5. It is noted that the non-pecuniary damages awarded by the tribunal are
inadequate. The accident had occurred in June, 2013. Following the view
taken by this Court in MAC.APP.No.160/2015 Shriram General Insurance
Co Ltd v. Usha decided on 05.05.2016, non-pecuniary damages in the sum
of `1,50,000/- towards loss of love & affection and `50,000/- each towards
funeral expenses and loss to estate are added. Thus, the total compensation
is computed as (27,80,000 + 1,50,000 + 50,000 + 50,000) `30,30,000/-.
6. The award is modified accordingly. Needless to add, it shall carry
interest as levied by the tribunal.
7. The tribunal had apportioned the award amongst the first and second
respondents in the ratio of 25% and 75% respectively. It had also directed
one-half of their shares to be put in fixed deposit receipt for a period of six
years.
8. By order dated 09.05.2014, the insurance company was directed to
deposit the entire awarded amount with interest within the period specified
from which 95% was allowed to be released, the balance be kept in fixed
deposit receipt with UCO Bank, Delhi High Court branch. Admittedly,
more than due would have been released to the claimants in terms of the said
interim order. However, since the one-half of the said amount thus released,
would still be lying in the fixed deposit receipt, the Registrar General shall
take suitable steps to not only recalculate the amounts payable to the
claimants under the modified award but also retrieve what has been received
in excess and refund the balance to the insurer.
9. Statutory amount, if deposited, shall be refunded.
10. The appeal is disposed of in above terms.
(R.K. GAUBA)
JUDGE
MAY 19, 2016
VLD
