Delhi High Court
National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Rabinder Nath Arora & Ors. on 19 January, 2017
$~R-201
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: January 19, 2017
+ MAC APP 397/2008 C.M.No. 10139/2008
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Pankaj Seth, Advocate
Versus
RABINDER NATH ARORA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Amit Sharma, Advocate for
respondents No.1 & 2
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
% ORAL
1. Impugned Award of 26th March, 2008 grants compensation of
`10,23,728/- with interest to respondents-claimants in respect of death of
Ms. Shalini Arora, aged 27 years, who died in a road accident on 12th
January, 2005. The facts of this case are already noted in the opening
paragraph of the impugned Award and so, need no reproduction. Suffice
to note that deceased was earning `2,75,000/- p.a. and respondents-
claimants are her parents, who were aged 58 years and 52 years on the
day of accident. Mother of deceased had stepped into witness box to
assert that there was financial loss but she had not quantified the said loss.
On the basis of evidence led, learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
has assessed the loss of dependency at `10,03,728/- by applying
multiplier of 8. Under the non-pecuniary heads, composite compensation
of `20,000/- only has been awarded towards „love and affection and
cremation expenses‟.
2. The challenge to impugned Award by learned counsel for
appellant-insurer is on the ground that there is no loss of dependency and
that tax deduction has not been taken into consideration. It is submitted
that personal expenses deducted are 1/3rd whereas it ought to have been
1/2. So, it is submitted that impugned Award needs to be suitably
modified.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents-claimants
supports the impugned Award and submits that the compensation granted
is rather inadequate and multiplier of 11 ought to have been applied while
taking the average age of parents of the deceased. It is also submitted that
compensation awarded under the non-pecuniary heads is wholly
inadequate and even if cross-objections are not filed, this Court can
suitably enhance it.
4. Upon hearing and on perusal of impugned Award and the evidence
on record, I find that though father of deceased has not stepped into
witness box but the evidence of mother of deceased does show that there
was financial loss due to death of earning hand i.e. their daughter.
Pertinently, mother of deceased in her evidence has negated the
suggestion of appellant that there was no financial loss. So, it cannot be
said that there was no loss of dependency. Regarding the application of
multiplier, I find that in the facts and circumstances of this case,
multiplier adopted is correct. However, tax deduction ought to have been
made. 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".
5. During the course of hearing, it was brought to the notice of this
Court that annual income to the extent of `1,80,000/- is exempt from tax
and even if there is a tax deduction, it would be negligible, as taxable
income would be `8,200/- p.a.. The tax payable on taxable income would
be just `800/-. So, the loss of dependency is reduced from `1,88,200/- to
`1,87,400/- and after deducting 50% towards personal expenses, loss of
dependency comes to `93,700/- which is in consonance with Supreme
Court's decision in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and Others v. Delhi Transport
Corporation and Another, (2009) 6 SCC 121. Under the non-pecuniary
heads, a sum of `20,000/- has been granted towards loss of love and
affection, cremation charges etc., which is wholly inadequate. It needs no
reiteration that the Courts are under legal obligation to award fair and
reasonable compensation and non-filing of cross-objections would not
deter the Courts from granting reasonable compensation under the non-
pecuniary heads. Such a view is being taken in view of decision of
Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh, (2004) 3
SCC 297, wherein it has been held as under:-
"17. Before we deal with various contentions raised by
the parties it is desirable to look into the legislative history of
the provisions for their interpretation. The relevant provisions
of the Act indisputably are beneficent to the claimant. They are
in the nature of a social welfare legislation."
6. In the facts and circumstances of this case, it is deemed appropriate
to award the compensation of `50,000/- towards loss of estate, `25,000/-
towards funeral expenses and `1,00,000/- towards loss of love and
affection. Thus, the modified compensation payable to respondents-
claimants is as under:-
Loss of dependency `7,49,600/-
Loss of estate `50,000/-
Loss of love and affection `1,00,000/-
Funeral expenses `25,000/-
Total `9,24,600/-
7. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has granted interest @7% p.a. on
the awarded amount which is slightly lower. In view of Supreme Court's
decision in Rajesh & Ors vs. Rajbir Singh & Ors. (2013) 9 SCC 54
interest on the awarded amount is enhanced from 7% to 7.5% p.a. The
excess amount, if any, deposited by appellant be refunded to appellant
along with interest accrued thereupon along with the statutory deposit.
8. With aforesaid modification, this appeal and application are
disposed of.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
JANUARY 19, 2017
r
