Delhi High Court
Icici Lombard General Insurance ... vs Rukmani Devi & Ors. on 4 December, 2017
$~R-629 & 630
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 04th December, 2017
+ MAC APPEAL 1120/2012 and CM 17970/2012 and
17972/2012
ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LTD. ..... Appellant
Through: Ms. Neerja Sachdeva, Advocate
versus
RUKMANI DEVI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Kavita Tyagi for Mr.
Navneet Goyal, Advocate for
R-1 to 7
+ MAC APPEAL 404/2013
RUKMANI DEVI & ORS. ..... Appellants
Through: Ms. Kavita Tyagi for Mr.
Navneet Goyal, Advocate
versus
ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSRUANCE
COMPANY LTD. & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Neerja Sachdeva, Adv. for
R-1
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. Deep Chand, born on 15.01.1963, suffered injuries in a motor
vehicular accident that had occurred on 31.07.2008 due to negligent
driving of truck bearing registration no.HR-38M-5746 admittedly
insured against third party risk with ICICI Lombard General Insurance
Company Ltd. (insurer) for the period in question and died in the
consequence. His wife joining six other members of the family
(collectively, the claimants) instituted accident claim case (suit
no.400/2011/2008) on 16.10.2008 seeking compensation.
2. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Tribunal) held inquiry
and, by judgment dated 06.03.2012, awarded compensation in the total
sum of Rs.35,36,672/- fastening the liability to pay with interest at the
rate of 9% p.a. on the insurer, calculating it thus :-
Loss of dependency Rs.34,41,672/-
Funeral expenses Rs.25,000/-
Love and affection Rs.60,000/-
Loss of consortium Rs.10,000/-
Total Rs.35,36,672/-
3. The insurer by its appeal (MACA 1120/2012) has questioned
the award on the ground that since two of the claimants were married
daughters of the deceased, they could not have been included amongst
the dependents and, thus, the personal and living expenses should have
been deducted to the extent of one-fourth. It is also the argument of
the insurer that income tax liability should have been deducted in
calculation of loss of dependency. The insurer also argues that non-
pecuniary damages are not in accord with the ruling of a 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.
4. Per contra, the claimants by their appeal (MACA 404/2013)
argued that one of the daughters was handicapped and therefore,
deduction of one-fifth may be retained. It is also the grievance of the
claimants that the tribunal had not correctly considered the income
reflected in the salary slip (Ex. PW3/2) for July 2008 as it had
assumed the net income to be the real income.
5. The submissions of the claimants about the income are correct.
The gross emoluments were in the range of Rs.24,464.66. There was
no reason why net income after deduction of amounts towards
provident fund, income tax liability, accident insurance etc. should
have been taken into account. It is only the income tax liability which
had to be kept out. On gross emoluments of Rs.24,465/- (rounded
off), the total annual income comes to [Rs.24,465/- x 12]
Rs.2,93,580/-. Since the income tax liability against such income
during the financial year 2008-2009 would be about Rs.9,500/-, the
loss of dependency is to be calculated on the notional income of
(Rs.2,93,580 - 9,500/-) Rs.2,84,080/-. The ruling in Sarla Verma &
Ors. vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121,
applies and therefore, there is no escape from deduction on account of
personal and living expenses to the extent of one-fourth. Adding the
future prospects of increase to the extent of 30% as per Pranay Sethi
(supra), loss of dependency on the multiplier of 13 is re-computed as
[Rs.2,84,080/- x 130/100 x 3/4 x 13] Rs.36,00,714/-, rounded off to
Rs.36,01,000/-.
6. Following the dispensation in Pranay Sethi (supra), in lieu of
the non-pecuniary awards granted by the tribunal, Rs.40,000/- is added
towards loss of consortium and Rs.15,000/- each is added towards loss
to estate and funeral expenses.
7. Thus, the total compensation in the case comes to
[Rs.36,01,000/- + Rs.40,000/- + Rs.15,000/- + Rs.15,000/-]
Rs.36,71,000/- (Rupees Thirty six lakh and seventy one thousand
only). The award is modified accordingly. It shall carry interest as
levied by the tribunal.
8. It is noted that the tribunal had apportioned the award by
specifying the amounts in favour of different claimants.
9. By order dated 16.10.2012, the entire awarded amount with up-
to-date interest was directed to be deposited with UCO Bank, Delhi
High Court branch and from out of such deposit, seventy five percent
(75%) was permitted to be released to the claimants. The amount
granted by the tribunal with corresponding interest shall now be
released in terms of the impugned judgment. The entire enhanced
portion of the award with corresponding interest, however, shall fall to
the share of Rukmani Devi (widow) alone, to be released to her
accordingly. The Registry shall release the balance to the claimant
while refunding the statutory deposit to the insurance company upon
proof is shown of the award having been satisfied. The insurance
company will be obliged to satisfy the enhanced award by requisite
deposit with the tribunal within 30 days, making it available to be
released to the claimant.
10. The appeal and the pending applications are disposed of in
above terms.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
DECEMBER 04 , 2017/yg
