Delhi High Court
National Insurance Co Ltd vs Sheela Devi & Ors on 23 May, 2016
$~24 & 25
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 23.05.2016
+ MAC.APP. 855/2014 and CM No.15436/2014
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD ..... Appellant
Through: Ms. Shantha Devi Raman, Advocate
versus
SHEELA DEVI & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Anshuman Bal, Adv. for R-1 to 5
+ MAC.APP. 955/2015
SHEELA DEVI & ORS ..... Appellants
Through : Mr. Anshuman Bal, Advocate
versus
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD & ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Shantha Devi Raman, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT
R.K.GAUBA, J (ORAL):
1. Virender Singh, aged 59 years, employed as a constable in UP Police,
died as a result of injuries suffered in a motor vehicular accident that
occurred on 07.10.2011 statedly due to negligent driving of a vehicle
bearing registration no.HR-51W-2716 (offending vehicle), admittedly
insured against third party risk with the National Insurance Co. Ltd.
(appellant in MAC 855/2014) for the period in question. His wife and
children (appellants in MAC 955/2015) instituted an accident claim case
(MAC 36/12) on 27.02.2012 seeking compensation under Sections 166 and
140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (M.V. Act), impleading the driver /
owner and insurer of the offending vehicle as respondents.
2. On inquiry, by judgment dated 31.07.2014, the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal (tribunal) upheld the case about death having occurred due
to negligent driving of the offending vehicle. This finding has attained
finality as it was not further challenged.
3. By the award granted in the impugned judgment, compensation in the
sum of Rs.24,49,554/- was ordered to be paid with interest at the rate of 9%
p.a. in favour of the claimants by the insurer.
4. The insurer is in appeal submitting that since the tribunal found that
the second claimant is a major son and third to fifth respondents are married
daughters, none of them being dependents, the loss of dependency should
have been computed in favour of the wife (first claimant) after deducting
50% towards personal and living expenses. It is also submitted that the
deceased was to superannuate from the service of UP Police after six months
of the date of accident wherein he died. On the basis of this fact, it is argued
by the insurer that the loss of dependency post the attainment of the age of
60 should have been calculated on the notional income equivalent to pension
which he would be earning.
5. Per contra, the claimants by their appeal submit that the deduction on
account of income tax in the sum of Rs.11,691/- from the annual income of
Rs.3,66,912/- was improper. Relying on Vimal Kanwar and Ors. vs.
Kishore Dan and Ors., 2013 (3) TAC 6 (SC), it is argued by the claimants
that since the salary certificate (Ex. PW2/3) did not disclose the deduction of
tax at source, no deduction on this account should have been made before
calculating the loss of dependency. This argument is unmerited. When the
gross income is known to the tribunal, the income tax liability can be
properly calculated. There is no reason why the deduction on that account
should not be made in accordance with the dictum in Sarla Verma & Ors.
vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121.
6. The submission of the insurance company about splitting up of the
multiplicand is based on a decision of a learned single Judge of the High
Court of Gauhati in a case reported as New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs.
Numali Saikia and Ors., 2011 (1) ACC 273. Having regard to the method
of calculation of loss of dependency in Sarla Verma (supra), the said ruling
does not commend itself to this court. Since the death had occurred while
the deceased was still in Government service, there is no reason why the
calculation of loss of dependency be made in the manner suggested.
7. There is, however, substance in the argument of the insurance
company as to the deduction on account of personal and living expenses.
Having returned a finding on fact that all the four children were not
financially dependent, the only dependent being the wife, deduction on
account of personal and living expenses had to be made to the extent of
50%. Thus, the loss of dependency on the multiplier of 9 is made afresh and
is re-computed as (Rs.3,55,221/2 x 9) Rs.15,98,495/-, rounded off to
Rs.15,99,000/-.
8. The tribunal awarded ₹1 Lakh each towards loss of love and affection
and loss of consortium, ₹25,000/- towards funeral expenses and ₹10,000/-
towards loss to estate. Following the view taken in Following the view
taken in Rajesh & Ors. v. Rajbir Singh & Ors., (2013) 9 SCC 54 and
Shashikala V. Gangalakshmamma (2015) 9 SCC 150, the award on account
of loss to estate is increased to ₹25,000/-.
9. Adding the amount of ₹83,228/- towards medical expenses which
was not reimbursed, the total compensation in the case is re-calculated as (
₹15,99,000/- + ₹2,50,000/- + ₹83,228/-) ₹19,32,228/- rounded off to
₹19,33,000/-.
10. The award is modified accordingly. Needless to say, it shall carry
interest as levied by the tribunal.
11. The tribunal had apportioned the award by specifying the amount
falling to the share of the claimants. By order dated 23.09.2014, the
insurance company had been directed to deposit the entire awarded amount
with accumulated interest with the Registrar General of this court within the
period specified and upon such deposit being made, 60% was allowed to be
released in terms of the impugned judgment, the balance to be kept in fixed
deposit receipt with the UCO Bank, Delhi High Court Branch, New Delhi
for a period of one year with provision for renewal.
12. Since the amount of compensation has been reduced, it is directed that
the amounts already released in favour of the second to fifth respondents /
claimants (children of the deceased) shall be treated as their respective
shares, the entire balance now to be paid to go to the first claimant (widow)
alone.
13. The Registrar General shall calculate the amount payable under the
modified award and release the same from the balance, refunding the excess,
if any, with statutory deposit if made, to the insurer.
14. Both appeals and the pending application are disposed of in above
terms.
R.K. GAUBA
(JUDGE)
MAY 23, 2016
yg
