Delhi High Court
National Insurance Co Ltd. vs R. Suneeta & Ors. on 18 January, 2017
$~R-24
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: January 18, 2017
+ MAC.APP. 574/2008
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD. ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Pradeep Gaur, Advocate
Versus
R. SUNEETA & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. S.N. Prashar, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
% ORAL
1. Impugned Award of 5th July, 2008 grants compensation of
`27,95,966/- with interest to respondents-claimants, i.e. legal heirs of Shri
Rambhatla Laxman Rao, aged 32 years, who had died in a road accident
on 18th June, 2005.
2. Appellant-insurer as well as respondents-claimants are dissatisfied
with the impugned Award, which has given rise to the instant appeal and
the cross-objections filed by respondents-claimants. The factual
background of this case already stands noted in the impugned Award and
so, needs no reproduction. Suffice to note that deceased was working as
Assistant Manager with M/s T.V. Today Network on contractual basis
and was earning `3,17,996/- p.a. which included Leave Travel Allowance
and Special Allowance of `3,060/-. Loss of dependency has been
calculated by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal as
`27,55,966/- while taking loss of income to be `3,17,996/-p.a. and by
applying the multiplier of 13, loss of dependency has been worked out.
Under non-pecuniary heads, a sum of `15,000/- towards loss of estate;
`5,000/- towards funeral expenses; `10,000/- towards loss of consortium
and `15,000/- towards loss of love and affection has been awarded by the
learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.
3. Challenge to the impugned Award by learned counsel for
appellant-insurer is on the ground that while calculating the income of
deceased, Leave Travel Allowance and Special Allowance ought to have
to be excluded, as the employment was of contractual nature and because
the deceased had died during the period of probation. On the other hand,
learned counsel for respondents-claimants seek enhancement of
compensation on the ground that in the light of Supreme Court's decision
in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and
Another, (2009) 6 SCC 121, multiplier of 16 ought to have been applied
whereas in the impugned Award, multiplier of 13 has been adopted. It is
also submitted by learned counsel for respondents-claimants that the
compensation granted under the non-pecuniary heads needs to be suitably
enhanced in the light of Supreme Court's decision in Rajesh & Ors vs.
Rajbir Singh & Ors : (2013) 9 SCC 54. Nothing else is urged by either
side.
4. Upon hearing and on perusal of impugned award, evidence on
record and the decisions cited, I find that though the employment of
deceased was of contractual nature but it is apparent from the
Appointment Letter (Ex. PW-1/4) that at the end of every three years, the
contractual employment was to be renewed by mutual consent for such
period as parties agree. In such a situation, it cannot be said that the
employment of deceased was of purely temporary nature. Moreover,
Appointment Letter (Ex. PW-1/4) reveals that Leave Travel Allowance as
well as Special Allowance was paid to the deceased irrespective of his
contractual nature of employment and so, there is no justification to
exclude these allowances while computing the income of the deceased.
The learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has rightly done so and the
impugned award cannot be faulted with on this ground.
5. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for appellant-insurer
pointed out that as per Tax Deduction at Source Certificate (EX. PW-3/D)
a sum of `1,431/- was deducted towards income tax. On the aspect of
Tax Deduction at Source, Supreme Court in Vimal Kanwar v. Kishore
Dan (2013) 7 SCC 476 has reiterated that where the annual income is in
taxable range, the words "actual salary" should be read as "actual salary
less tax". In the instant case, both the sides agree that annual deduction of
tax from the income of deceased would be `6370/-.
6. As regards enhancement of compensation is concerned, I find that
in view of Supreme Court's decision in Sarla Verma (Supra), multiplier
of 16 is to be applied, as the deceased was aged 32 years at the time of
accident. So, upon adopting multiplier of 16, Loss of Dependency is
assessed at `33,24,050/- after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses
and after tax deductions.
7. Under the non-pecuniary heads, the compensation awarded appears
to be on the lower side. In Rajesh (Supra), deceased was aged 33 years
and Supreme Court has awarded compensation of `1,00,000/- for Loss of
Consortium and `25,000/- towards Funeral Expenses and a sum of
`1,00,000/- towards Loss of Love and Affection. In the instant case, the
compensation granted under the non-pecuniary heads is accordingly
enhanced from `10,000/- to `1,00,000/- for Loss of Consortium; from
`15,000/- to `1,00,000/- towards Loss of Love and Affection and Funeral
expenses are enhanced from `5,000/- to `25,000/-. Since in Rajesh
(Supra) no compensation is granted for Loss of Estate, therefore, grant of
`15,000/- under this head to respondents-claimants is declined.
8. Thus, the enhanced compensation payable to respondents-
claimants is as under:-
Loss of dependency `3,11,626 x 16 x 12 = `33,24,050/-
(rounded off to `33,24,100/-)
Loss of consortium `1,00,000/-
Loss of love and `1,00,000/-
affection
Funeral expenses `25,000/-
Total `35,34,050/-
(rounded off to `35,34,100/-)
9. In terms of order of 25th November, 2008, 75% of the
compensation awarded by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal if released to
respondents-claimants be adjusted and the balance of it along with the
enhanced compensation alongwith interest @9% p.a. be released to
respondents-claimants in the same manner and ratio as provided in the
impugned Award. It is made clear that if the enhanced amount is not
deposited by appellant-insurer with the Registrar General of this Court
within four weeks, then it will carry interest @9% p.a. till realisation.
10. The statutory deposit, if any, be refunded to the appellant-insurer
after enhanced amount is deposited.
11. With aforesaid modification, this appeal and cross-objections are
disposed of.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
JANUARY 18, 2017
r
