Delhi High Court
Shweta Rai vs Dhani Ram & Ors on 23 August, 2017
$~15 to 17
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 23rd August, 2017
+ MAC.APP. 146/2017
SHWETA RAI ..... Appellant
Through: Ms. Neha Garg and Mr. Nitin
Garg, Advocates
versus
DHANI RAM & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Meha Aggarwal, Ms. Pranati
Bhatnagar and Mr. Gaurav Nair, Advocates
for R-3
Mr. B.P. Saxena, Advocate for R-4 to 7
+ MAC.APP. 200/2017 and CM 8650-8651/2017 and
17000/2017
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD ..... Appellant
Through: Ms. Meha Aggarwal, Ms. Pranati
Bhatnagar and Mr. Gaurav Nair, Advocates
versus
NIRMALA DEVI & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. B.P. Saxena, Adv. for R-1 to
4
Ms. Neha Garg and Mr. Nitin Garg, Adv
for R-5
+ MAC.APP. 209/2017 and CM 8906/2017
SHWETA RAI ..... Appellant
Through: Ms. Neha Garg and Mr. Nitin
Garg, Advocates
Versus
MACA 146/2017, 200/2017 & 209/2017 Page 1 of 5
DHANI RAM AND ORS ..... Respondent
Through: Ms. Meha Aggarwal, Ms. Pranati
Bhatnagar and Mr. Gaurav Nair, Advocates
for R-3
Mr. B.P. Saxena, Adv. for R- 4 to 7
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. Aman Mehta, 28 years old, working as Manager-Area Sales &
Operation with a private entity suffered injuries that proved fatal in a
motor vehicular accident which occurred on 06.07.2014 at about
11.51 a.m. due to the negligent driving of truck bearing registration
no.HR-69A-8456 (truck), admittedly insured against third party risk
for the period in question with New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
(appellant in MACA 200/2017). He had been married about two
months prior to the said occurrence to Shweta Rai (appellant in
MACA nos.146/2017 and 209/2017). His parents, Nirmala Devi and
Dilip Kumar Mehta joining his siblings, Amresh Mehta and Amita
Mehta (respondents in these appeals), instituted accident claim case
(suit no.3257/2016) on 20.09.2014 seeking compensation under
Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
2. It is noted that in the same accident, Rajesh Kumar who was
driving the motor cycle bearing registration no.DL-3SAB-9593, on
the pillion of which Aman Mehta was travelling, had also died.
Another accident claim case relating to the death of Rajesh had been
instituted on 09.09.2014.
3. Both the claim cases were clubbed together and, on the basis of
inquiry held, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Tribunal)
accepted the case for compensation on the principle of fault liability
awarding Rs.1,31,00,224/- as compensation in the case relating to the
death of Aman Mehta. The Tribunal found the siblings of the
deceased Aman Mehta not to be entitled to any compensation. It
apportioned Rs.2,01,000/- as compensation in favour of the father of
the deceased and divided the balance in equal proportions in favour
of the mother and the wife. The liability to satisfy the award was
fastened against the insurance company.
4. The insurance company has come up with appeal (MACA
200/2017) questioning the computation of loss of dependency taking
exception to the inclusion of the element of future prospects of
increase to the extent of 50%.
5. The wife Shweta Rai, on the other hand, has come up with two
separate appeals, one questioning the computation and the other
raising grievances about the apportionment in equal terms in favour
of the mother of the deceased, her claim being that she was entitled to
larger share. On computation, it is claimed that the salary has not
been properly construed on the basis of evidence adduced. Therefore,
the award towards loss of dependency is deficient.
6. On the question of calculation of loss of dependency, the
contentions of both sides will have to be rejected. The amount of
Rs.79,828/- is clearly reflected in the evidence to be cost to the
company, which is not the same as the salary and allowances actually
paid to the deceased employee. The Tribunal has correctly gone by
Rs.73,493/- as the total emoluments earned in the capacity of
Manager with M/s. SSIPL Retails Ltd., the terms of engagement with
which entity were duly proved by Uma Shankar Pandey (PW-3),
Executive (HR) including by proving the appointment letter (Ex. PW-
3/A) and emolument review letters (Ex. PW-3/B, PW-3/C and
PW3/D). The evidence of PW-3 clearly brought out irrefutably that
the service in which the deceased was engaged by the private
company was regular and given the nature of employment, it would
undoubtedly result in periodic rise in the income, as is further
confirmed by the emoluments review letters of 2011, 2013 and 2014.
Therefore, the element of future prospects of increase taken into
consideration by the tribunal cannot be grudged.
7. The question of the apportionment of the compensation in the
present case was indeed a critical task for the tribunal. The marriage
of the appellant Shweta Rai with the deceased was only two months
old. On being asked, the counsel appearing on her behalf fairly
concedes that there is no child begotten out of the marriage. At the
same time, the mother had her spouse (father of the deceased), who is
an employee with Railways to look upto for sustenance. In these
circumstances, it was not proper to apportion the balance of the
amount of compensation equally amongst the wife and the mother.
Though the claim of the mother could not be reduced to the same
level as at which the father has been granted compensation, given the
composition of the family, it is found just and proper, as is now
agreed on behalf of the wife, that the share of the mother and the wife
of the deceased in the balance of the award (i.e. excluding the share
of the father) is kept in the ratio of 40% and 60% respectively. The
apportionment of the award is accordingly modified.
8. By order dated 06.03.2017 in MACA 200/2017, the insurance
company had been directed to deposit the awarded amount with the
tribunal as a pre-condition to stay against the operation of the
impugned award, though 50% of the said amount was allowed to be
released in the manner and ratio determined by the impugned
judgment.
9. The learned counsel appearing for the insurance company
submits that under the law it was obliged to deduct tax at source
against the interest and that there has been an omission in that regard
on its behalf. The insurance company is allowed to take back the
balance of the money lying with the tribunal and redeposit the
balance of its liability in terms of the award hereby modified after
deduction of tax, if and as required under the law, within 30 days of
today. Needless to add, while making such deposit, the insurance
company will also be obliged to make available proper certificates of
deduction of tax at source to each claimant.
10. The amount re-deposited by the insurance company shall be
released by the tribunal in accordance with the modified
apportionment.
11. The statutory deposit made by the insurance company in its
appeal shall be refunded.
12. These appeals alongwith the pending applications are disposed
of in above terms.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
AUGUST 23, 2017/yg
