Delhi High Court
Gyanti Devi And Ors. vs Brijesh Kumar And Ors. on 9 March, 2017
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: March 09, 2017
(i) + MAC.APP.294/2008
GYANTI DEVI & ORS. ..... Appellants
Through: Mr. Bhupesh Narula and
Mr.Gaurav Wadhwa, Advocates
versus
BRIJESH KUMAR & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. L.K. Tyagi, Advocate for
respondent-Insurer
(ii) + MAC.APP.520/2008
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. L.K. Tyagi, Advocate
versus
GYANTI DEVI & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Bhupesh Narula and
Mr.Gaurav Wadhwa, Advocates
for respondents-claimants
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
% ORAL
The above-captioned two appeals are directed against common
impugned Award of 16th January, 2008 vide which compensation of
`15,68,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum has been granted on
account of death of MTNL Officer - Jagat Narayan Singh in a road
accident on 13th January, 2006. The impugned Award stands modified
vide order of 12th March, 2008 and the modified compensation granted is
`21,41,000/- with the same rate of interest i.e. 7.5% per annum. The
breakup of compensation granted by learned Tribunal in Award as
modified vide order of 12th March, 2008 is as under: -
Loss of dependency `20,83,000/-
Loss of love and affection `40,000/-
Funeral expenses `8,000/-
Loss of estate `10,000/-
Total compensation `21,41,000/-
In the above-captioned first appeal, enhancement of compensation
is sought by Claimants whereas in the above-captioned second appeal,
reduction of compensation is sought by Insurer. Service is complete in
these appeals. Since both these appeals arise out of common impugned
Award and order of 12th March, 2008, therefore, with the consent of
learned counsel for the parties, these appeals have been heard together
and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
While entertaining Insurer's appeal, Insurer was directed to deposit
the entire awarded amount with interest and it was directed that 75% out
of it with interest be released to Claimants, who are widow, two sons and
two daughters. Learned counsel for Claimants submits that aforesaid
order has been complied with. The facts are already noted in detail in
impugned Award and so, need no reproduction. Suffice to note that apart
from evidence of Claimants, there is evidence of Kishan Chand (PW-3),
concerned official from MTNL where deceased was working. This
witness (PW-3) has proved the service record of deceased including
salary slip for the month of December, 2005. On the basis of evidence
recorded, impugned Award and the order of 12th March, 2008 have been
rendered.
Learned counsel for Insurer submits that 'future prospects' have
been wrongly granted as deceased was aged about 50 years and as per
Supreme Court's decision in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and Others v. Delhi
Transport Corporation and Another (2009) 6 SCC 121, no addition
towards 'future prospects' is to be made after the age of 50 years is
crossed and so, addition made towards 'future prospects' ought to be
disallowed.
On the other hand, learned counsel for Claimants submits that
deduction of 1/3rd towards 'personal expenses' of deceased is uncalled for
and infact, the deduction ought to be 1/4th as there are six Claimants. It is
also submitted by learned counsel for Claimants that income tax
deduction has been made on monthly basis whereas it should have been
made on annual basis and that the 'future prospects' have not been
granted while taking into consideration the enhancement in salary as per
the 5th Pay Commission w.e.f. 1st January, 2006. Lastly, it is submitted
that the compensation granted under the non-pecuniary heads is on the
lower side and it needs to be suitably enhanced. Thus, it is submitted that
the total compensation granted needs to be appropriately enhanced.
Nothing else is urged on behalf of either side.
Upon hearing and on perusal of impugned Award and evidence on
record and the decision cited, I find that deduction of 1/3 rd towards
'personal expenses' of deceased is not justified as Claimants are six in
number and therefore, deduction has to be 1/4th towards 'personal
expenses' of deceased. The deceased was an officer in Public Sector
Undertaking and so his salary slip can be safely relied upon to assess loss
of income. Regarding the grant of 'future prospects', I find that as per the
service record of deceased, he was aged 49 years on the day of accident
and so, in view of Supreme Court's decision in Sarla Verma (supra),
addition of 30% towards 'future prospects' is required to be made in
deceased's net annual income of ₹1,98,803/-. After tax deduction of
₹23,017/- from annual income of ₹2,21,820/- and upon adding 30%
towards 'future prospects' and on deducting 1/4th towards personal
expenses of deceased and by applying multiplier of 13, 'loss of
dependency' is reassessed as under: -
₹2,58,884/- X 3/4 X 13 = ₹25,19,829/-
(rounded off to ₹25,19,830/-)
The compensation granted under the non-pecuniary heads is
apparently on the lower side. Accordingly, compensation granted under
the head of 'love and affection' is enhanced from `40,000/- to `1 lac and
the 'funeral expenses' are increased from `8,000/- to `25,000/- and the
compensation granted under the head of 'loss of estate' is enhanced from
`10,000/- to `50,000/-. I also find that widow of deceased is entitled to
'loss of consortium' which is quantified at `1 lac. Accordingly,
compensation payable to Claimants is reassessed as under: -
Loss of dependency `25,19,830/-
Loss of love and affection `1,00,000/-
Loss of consortium `1,00,000/-
Funeral expenses `25,000/-
Loss of estate `50,000/-
Total compensation `27,94,830/-
The interest granted on the awarded compensation by learned
Tribunal @ 7.5% per annum is also found to be on the lower side. So, in
light of a recent decision of Supreme Court in Shivakumar M. v. The
Managing Director, BMTC, 2017 SCC Online SC 148, the interest
granted on the awarded compensation is enhanced from 7.5% to 9% per
annum.
In light of the aforesaid, compensation awarded is enhanced from
`21,41,000/- to `27,94,830/-. The enhanced compensation shall carry
interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till
the date of deposit of the enhanced amount. Respondent-Insurer is
granted six weeks time to deposit the enhanced compensation of
`6,53,830/- with interest @ 9% per annum and differential interest on the
entire awarded amount with learned Tribunal. Upon Claimants furnishing
their bank account details, learned Tribunal shall ensure that the enhanced
compensation alongwith interest component is directly transmitted into
the bank account of Claimants as per this judgment and in the manner as
provided in impugned Award.
Both the appeals are accordingly disposed of, while modifying the
impugned Award in aforesaid terms.
Statutory deposit, if any, made by Insurer be refunded as per Rules.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
MARCH 09, 2017
s
