Delhi High Court
National Insurance Co Ltd vs Parmila Teotia And Ors. on 21 February, 2017
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: February 21, 2017
(i) + MAC.APP. 259/2008
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Amit Gaur and Mr. Pradeep Gaur,
Advocates
Versus
PARMILA TEOTIA & ORS .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjay Bansal, Advocate for
respondents-Claimants
(ii) + MAC.APP. 108/2017
PARMILA TEOTIA & ORS. .....Appellants
Through: Mr. Sanjay Bansal, Advocate
Versus
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD. .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Amit Gaur and Mr. Pradeep Gaur,
Advocates for respondent-insurer
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
(ORAL)
1. The above-captioned two appeals arise out of common impugned
Award of 2nd January, 2008 which grants compensation of `16,87,400/-
Mac.App.108/2017
with interest @ 7% per annum to Claimants on account of death of one
Krishan Pal Singh in a road accident on 21st February, 2004. In the
above-captioned first appeal, reduction of compensation is sought
whereas in the above-captioned second appeal, enhancement of
compensation is sought.
2. The facts are already noted in detail in impugned Award and so,
need no reproduction. Suffice to note that apart from the evidence of
Claimants, there is evidence of Sameet Gambhir (PW-4), a friend of
deceased, who has deposed on the income aspect of deceased. The
breakup of compensation as awarded by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
(hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') is as under: -
1. Compensation of loss of `16,70,400/-
dependency
2. Love & Affection & Loss of Estate `10,000/-
3. Loss of Consortium `5,000/-
4. Funeral Expenses `2,000/-
Total `16,87,400 /-
3. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the above-
captioned two appeals have been heard together and by this common
judgment, they are being decided.
4. Learned counsel for Insurer submits that 50% addition towards
'future prospects' has been erroneously made by learned Tribunal while
assessing the 'loss of dependency' and that multiplier of 15 ought to have
been applied as the deceased was aged 37 years on the day of the
Mac.App.108/2017
accident. So, it is submitted that impugned Award needs to be suitably
modified to reduce the quantum of compensation granted.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for Claimants submits that
compensation granted by learned Tribunal is inadequate and it needs to
be suitably enhanced. It is pointed out by learned counsel for Claimants
that the compensation granted under the non-pecuniary heads is
inadequate and that the income of deceased ought to have been taken on
the basis of bank statements of deceased. It is submitted that the
multiplier applied is correct. Enhancement of compensation is sought by
learned counsel for Claimants while pointing out that deceased was a
Company Secretary by profession and was into private practice and was
earning well and this aspect has not been considered by learned Tribunal.
It is also pointed out by learned counsel for Claimants that since there are
four dependents, therefore, deduction of 1/4th ought to have been made
towards 'personal expenses' of deceased and not 1/3rd, as has been done
by learned Tribunal. Lastly, it is submitted by learned counsel for
Claimants that the rate of interest granted by learned Tribunal is on lower
side and it needs to be suitably enhanced. In support of these submissions,
reliance is placed upon Supreme Court's decisions in Rajesh and Others
v. Rajbir Singh and Others, (2013) 9 SCC 54 and Kalpanaraj and Others
v. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, (2015) 2 SCC 764 and
decision of this Court in MAC. APP. 324/2016 titled Kiran v. National
Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., rendered on 9th December, 2016.
6. Upon hearing and on perusal of impugned Award, evidence on
record and the decisions cited, I find that since deceased was aged 37
Mac.App.108/2017
years on the day of accident, therefore, multiplier of 15 ought to have
been applied. Learned Tribunal has erred in applying the multiplier of 16.
However, the Tribunal has rightly not placed reliance upon the bank
statements of deceased to assess the 'loss of dependency' because it does
not co-relate with deceased's Income Tax Returns of last two years.
Learned Tribunal has rightly relied upon the Income Tax Returns to
assess the income of deceased. This Court is fortified by a recent decision
of Supreme Court in Kalpanaraj (supra) to rely upon the Income Tax
Returns to assess the income of deceased. So, no case for enhancement of
compensation under the head of 'loss of dependency' is made out. Rather,
the quantum of compensation determined under this head needs to be
suitably reduced on account of application of appropriate multiplier in
terms of Supreme Court decision in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and Others v.
Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, (2009) 6 SCC 121.
7. As already noted above, multiplier of 15 ought to have been
applied. Further, since there are four dependents left behind by deceased,
therefore, deduction of 1/4th ought to have been made towards 'personal
expenses' of deceased. Learned Tribunal has erred in deducting 1/3rd
towards 'personal expenses' of deceased.
8. No doubt, this Court in MAC. APP. 324/2016 titled Kiran v.
National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., rendered on 9th December, 2016, has
relied upon Supreme Court's decision in Rajesh (supra) to maintain the
addition of 50% towards 'future income' but in view of Supreme Court's
dictum in S.K. Kapoor (2011) 4 SCC 589, the earlier decision of the same
strength shall prevail. So, on this aspect, no reliance can be placed upon
Mac.App.108/2017
a later Three Judge Bench decision of Supreme Court in Rajesh (supra).
While relying upon Supreme Court's earlier Three Judge Bench decision
in Reshma Kumari & Ors. v. Madan Mohan & Anr. (2013) 9 SCC 65, the
addition of 50% towards 'future prospects' is disallowed, as deceased
was self employed. Thus, the loss of dependency is reassessed at
`1,04,414/- X 15 X 3/4= `11,74,657.50/- (rounded off to `11,74,658/-).
9. Under the non-pecuniary heads, the compensation assessed by
learned Tribunal is certainly on lower side. In the light of Supreme
Court's decision in Rajesh (supra) and the facts and circumstances of this
case, the compensation under the head of 'loss of love and affection' is
enhanced from `10,000/- to `1 lac and compensation under the head of
'loss of consortium' is enhanced from `5,000/- to `1 lac. Likewise, the
compensation under the head of 'loss of estate' is enhanced from `5,000/-
to `50,000/- and 'funeral expenses' are enhanced from `2,000/- to
`25,000/-. Thus, the total compensation payable to Claimants is re-
assessed as `14,49,658/-, which is rounded off to `14,50,000/-.
10. Supreme Court in Kalpanaraj (supra) has granted interest @ 9%
p.a. where the accident took place in 1994. In the instant case, the
accident is of the year 2004. Therefore, in the facts of this case, it is
deemed appropriate to enhance the rate of interest from 7% per annum to
9% per annum. During the pendency of Insurer's appeal, vide order of
25th April, 2008, 50% of the awarded amount was directed to be released
to Claimants. The excess amount deposited by Insurer with interest be
refunded and the compensation payable to Claimants as per this judgment
be released to them. Impugned Award is modified in terms of this
Mac.App.108/2017
judgment.
11. Statutory deposit, if any made by Insurer, be refunded as per Rules.
12. The above-captioned two appeals are partly allowed to the extent
indicated above and are disposed of as such.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
FEBRUARY 21, 2017
s/r
Mac.App.108/2017
