Delhi High Court
United India Insurance Company ... vs Manjeet & Ors. on 4 December, 2017
$~R-636 & R-637 (common order)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 4th December, 2017
+ MAC APPEAL No.1138/2012
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
... Appellant
Through: Mr. A.K. De, Advocate with
Mr. Zadhid Ali, Advocate
versus
POOJA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Navneet Goyal, Advocate with
Ms. Kavita Tyagi, Advocate for R-1
to R-4.
+ MAC APPEAL No.1139/2012
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
... Appellant
Through: Mr. A.K. De, Advocate with
Mr. Zadhid Ali, Advocate
Versus
MANJEET & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Navneet Goyal, Advocate with
Ms. Kavita Tyagi, Advocate for R-1
to R-4.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. Dinesh Maan and Sudesh Kumar, suffered injuries in a motor
vehicular accident that had occurred on 03.05.2009, due to negligent
driving of motor vehicle described as car bearing registration No.DL-
4CAF-3479 and died in the consequence. Two accident claim cases
(MACT No792/10/09 and MACT No.793/10/09) were instituted by
their respective dependent family members (hereinafter referred to as
"the claimants") on 11.09.2009. They were subjected to enquiry and,
by separate judgments dated 11.07.2012, the tribunal held that the
death had occurred due to negligent driving of vehicle insured with
the appellant (insurer), it being held liable to pay the compensation
thereby determined.
2. In the claim case on account of death of Dinesh Maan, the
compensation was calculated thus:-
Sl.No. Heads Amount
(in Rs.)
1. Loss of dependency 31,31,532/-
2. Funeral charges 20,000/-
3. Loss of estate 1,00,000/-
4. Loss of consortium 50,000/-
5. Loss of love and affection and company, etc. 2,00,000/-
6. Loss of care and attention, etc. 1,00,000/-
Total 36,01,532/-
3. In the claim case on account of death of Sudesh Kumar, the
compensation was calculated thus:-
Sl.No. Heads Amount
(in Rs.)
1. Loss of dependency 46,99,344/-
2. Funeral charges 25,000/-
3. Loss of estate 1,00,000/-
4. Loss of consortium 50,000/-
5. Loss of love and affection and company, etc. 2,40,000/-
6. Loss of care and attention, etc. 1,00,000/-
Total 52,14,344/-
4. The liability to pay the compensation in each matter has been
fastened by the tribunal with interest @ 12% per annum, there being
further direction to pay counsel fee and out of pocket expenses in
each case, Rs.30,000/- and Rs.10,000/- in the first case and
Rs.25,000/- besides Rs.5,000/- in the second case.
5. The insurer came up with these appeals challenging the
computation of compensation awarded, the rate of interest levied and
the directions about payment of counsel fee and out of pocket
expenses.
6. In case of Dinesh Maan, the claimants had proved the salary
received by the deceased from Korus Engineering Solutions Pvt. Ltd.
by document (Ex.PW-4/2), which reveals the total emoluments in the
sum of Rs.11,000/- and the annual salary package of Rs.1,63,740/-, it
inclusive of food allowance and conveyance allowance, to which
exception is taken. In case of Sudesh Kumar, the income of the
deceased was proved by salary slip (Ex.PW-1/B) issued by North
Delhi Power Limited (NDPL) in whose employment the deceased
was engaged. The claimants had also proved by salary slip (Ex.PW-
2/2) for the month of April, 2009 which, for purposes of Form 16
(income tax liability), also indicated the gross total income of
Rs.1,81,894-. The tribunal took the emoluments shown earned in the
month of April, 2009 as the bench mark, the objection of the insurer
being that it is the gross total income declared for income tax
purposes which has been taken as the basis.
7. Both the above contentions in each case must be rejected.
8. There is no reason why the above mentioned allowances earned
by the deceased Dinesh Maan should be kept out. They were part of
the regular terms and conditions of the service and would lead to
corresponding savings and, thus, have a bearing on the loss of
dependency. The same logic applies to the other case. Salary for
purposes of income tax calculation is distinct from earnings.
9. There is, however, substance in the grievances in these cases
about the non pecuniary heads of damages which are way above the
dispensation as approved by the ruling of the Constitution Bench of
the Supreme Court rendered on 31.10.2017 in SLP (C) 25590/2014,
National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors.
10. Thus, in lieu of non-pecuniary damages awarded by the
tribunal, Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs.15,000/- each
towards loss of estate and funeral expenses are added.
11. The compensation in the case of Dinesh Maan is re-calculated
as (31,31,532/- + 40,000/- + 15,000/- + 15,000/-) Rs.32,01,532/-
rounded off to Rs.32,02,000/- (Rupees Thirty Two Lacs and Two
Thousand Only).
12. In case of Sudesh Kumar, the compensation is determined as
(46,99,344/- + 40,000/- + 15,000/- + 15,000/-) Rs.47,69,344/-
rounded off to Rs.47,70,000/- (Rupees Forty Seven Lacs Seventy
Thousand Only).
13. The awards are modified accordingly.
14. There being no justification for imposition of higher rate of
interest, following the consistent view taken by this Court, the rate of
interest is reduced to nine per cent (9%) per annum from the date of
filing of the petition till realization. [see judgment dated 22.02.2016
in MAC.APP. 165/2011 Oriental Insurance Co Ltd v. Sangeeta Devi
& Ors.].
15. There being no justification for such inclusion, the directions
with regard to payment of counsel fee and out of pocket expenses are
set aside.
16. Both the appeals are disposed of accordingly.
17. By order dated 30.10.2012, (passed in MAC APP.1138/2012),
the insurer was directed to deposit seventy five percent (75%) of the
awarded amount along with interest @ 9% per annum, with the
tribunal and upon such deposit the same was ordered to be released to
the claimants.
18. By order dated 30.10.2012, (passed in MAC APP.1139/2012),
the insurer was directed to deposit sixty percent (60%) of the awarded
amount along with interest @ 9% per annum, with the tribunal and
upon such deposit the same was ordered to be released to the
claimants.
19. The insurer is directed to satisfy the remainder of its liability in
each cases, by requisite deposit with upto date interest with the
tribunal within thirty days, making it available to be released to the
claimants in terms of the impugned award.
20. The statutory amount shall be refunded to the appellant in each
case, upon the proof of award having been satisfied is shown.
21. Both the appeals stand disposed of in above terms.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
DECEMBER 04, 2017
vk
