Delhi High Court
Rampiari Ahuja & Ors vs Jasdeep Singh & Ors on 24 November, 2016
$~Regular-21
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ MAC.APP. 370/2009
RAMPIARI AHUJA & ORS ..... Appellants
Through: Mr.Vimal Wadhwan, Advocate
versus
JASDEEP SINGH & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Rajat Brar, Advocate for
respondent No.3/Insurer
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
ORDER
% 24.11.2016
Impugned Award of 23rd April, 2009 grants compensation of
`3,79,691/- to appellants on account of death of Birinder Kumar Ahuja in
a road accident on 07th February, 2007 in Punjabi Bagh area near
Britannia Flyover, Delhi at 4.00PM. The deceased was aged 76 years at
the time of accident. He had retired as Chief Manager from Punjab
National Bank and was getting monthly pension of `9,226/-.
According to the appellants, he was also earning `45,000/- pm
from share investments and as, LIC agent. After recording the evidence,
learned Tribunal vide impugned Award has granted the compensation as
noted above.
In this appeal, enhancement of compensation is sought on the
ground that compensation awarded is on the lesser side. At the final
hearing, learned counsel for appellants contends that loss of dependency
has been assessed by taking into account the pension of the deceased at
Rs.98,171/- only and his income from shares etc. has not been taken into
consideration, though it is noted in the impugned Award that his earnings
for financial year was `2,50,000/- odd. It is submitted that pension
amount of `98,171/- is computed for a period of ten months and for a
period of 12 months, it ought to be `1,17,805/-. It is submitted that in
view of the Form 16A, Ex.PW1/9 the income from share commissions
etc. of the deceased was `6,41,185/- for the financial year 2004-05 which
has erroneously not been taken into consideration and if the average of
the last three financial years is to be taken into consideration, then the
income of the deceased ought to have been computed at `3,36,749/.
Regarding rate of interest, it is submitted that learned Tribunal has
granted interest @ 8% pa which is on the lesser side and has been granted
from 21st January, 2009; whereas it should have been granted from the
date of filing of the claim petition as the absence of the claimants before
the Tribunal was only on one date. So, it is submitted that the
compensation granted deserves to be enhanced.
On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.3- Insurer
supports the impugned Award and submits that the income of the
deceased from other sources has been rightly excluded because Income
Tax Return (ITR) relied upon by appellants is prepared much after the
death of deceased and so in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in
V.Subbulakshmi & Ors vs. S Lakshmi & Another (2008) 4 SCC 224, it has
to be excluded from consideration and thus, this appeal deserves
dismissal.
Upon hearing and on perusal of impugned Award, evidence on
record and the decision cited, I find that although appellants/claimants
have not stated in their evidence that total pension of the deceased was
`1,17,805/-, but it is quite evident from the facts of this case that
Mr.Birinder Kumar Ahuja had died two months prior to the close of the
financial year. Therefore, it has to be kept in mind that the pension drawn
by him was for ten months and not for the entire financial year. Thus, the
pension income has to be taken as `1,17,804/-.
Regarding the income from other source, reliance has been placed
by the appellants/claimants on solitary ITR of 14th May, 2007 which was
prepared much after the accident in question. In view of the Supreme
Court's decision in V.Subbulakshmi & Ors (supra), ITRs prepared after
the date of the accident have to be excluded. So far as TDS Certificate
Ex.PW1/9 is concerned, I find that same by itself is not sufficient to
conclude that the income of the deceased for the financial year 2005-06
was `6,41,185/- because ITR for the said financial year has not been
placed on record. Otherwise also, income from shares etc. is not
satisfactorily proved on record. So far as interest on the awarded amount
is concerned, I find that reasonable interest payable is 9% and not 8% and
it ought to be paid from the date of claim petition.
Consequentially, while enhancing income of the deceased from
`98,171/- to `1,16,623/- and by applying the multiplier of 5, the 'Loss of
Dependency' is enhanced to `5,83,115/- and after deducting 1/3rd
personal expenses, the enhanced amount payable is `3,88,744/- with
interest @ 9% pa from the date of filing of claim petition till realisation.
Let the enhanced compensation be credited into saving bank accounts of
appellants / claimants in equal proportion within a period of 12 weeks,
subject to appellants furnishing their bank account details to respondent
No.3- Insurer within a week from today.
With the aforesaid modification, this appeal is disposed of.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
NOVEMBER 24, 2016
m
