Delhi High Court
National Insurance Co Ltd. vs Beena Devi & Ors. on 23 May, 2017
$~47
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Decided on: 23rd May, 2017
+ MAC.APP. 1013/2014 & CM Nos.18289-90 & 44841 of 2016
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD. ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Arihant Jain for Mrs. Shantha
Devi Raman, Advocate.
Versus
BEENA DEVI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Anshuman Bal, Advocate for
Respondents No. 1 to 3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI
NAJMI WAZIRI, J (Oral)
1. A motor vehicle accident on 05.12.2011 claimed the life of one
Mr. Rakesh Kumar Saini. His kin were awarded an amount of
Rs.44,13,304/- alongwith interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the
date of the filing of the claim petition i.e. 22.12.2011 till its realization.
Of the amount awarded, a sum of Rs.41,78,304/- was granted towards
loss of dependency while the remaining amount was for non-pecuniary
compensation. He was survived by his wife, two children and mother.
The latter has since passed away.
2. The appellants have questioned the computation of loss of
dependency on the ground that addition of 30% towards future prospects
MAC.APP.Nos.1013 of 2014 Page 1 of 4
to the income of the deceased is erroneous in view of the dicta of the
Supreme Court in Reshma Kumari Vs. Madan Mohan (2013) 9 SCC 65,
which held that 30% addition is permissible if the deceased was between
the age group of 40-50 years and no addition is permissible beyond the
age of 50 years. The appellant's argument is specious because in the
aforesaid judgement, the last sentence of para 39 provides a window for
departure from the above principle, in extraordinary circumstances. The
Court notices that at the time of the accident, the deceased was 50 years
and 5 months old. He would still be considered a 50 year old person i.e.
his enjoyment of his 50th years would continue till he attained the age of
51 years. Therefore denying him the benefit of 30% addition towards
future prospects would be unjust. In the circumstances, the addition of
30% future prospects for a 50 year old person is legitimate and just.
3. The other ground of challenge is that the deceased came under the
category of income-tax payers; hence, the TDS of 10% should have been
deducted from his salary amount above Rs.1,80,000/- upto Rs.5,00,000/-.
The learned counsel further submits that although transport allowance of
Rs.2,528/- has been deducted, deduction on account of dearness
allowance and conveyance allowance of Rs.75/- each ought to have been
made as well. The Court finds reason in the contention, since the latter
two allowances were personal in nature they would need to be deducted.
However, the amount towards transport allowance could well have been
used by the deceased for the benefit of the family also, such as
conveyance to their school/college or place of work, while he was on his
way to his office. In the circumstances, some element of transport
allowance could have enured to the benefit of the family - say 50% of it.
MAC.APP.Nos.1013 of 2014 Page 2 of 4
Thus, the Court considers it just and proper that 50% of the aforesaid
amount of Rs.2528/- (transport allowance) be added to the salary of the
deceased as a loss of benefit to his survivors.
4. Accordingly, the compensation towards loss of dependency is re-
computed as under: Salary taken at Rs.29,999 - (50% of Rs.2528 i.e.
Rs.1264) - Rs.75 - Rs.75= Rs.28,585/- per month. Hence, the annual
salary would be Rs.3,43,020/- (Rs.28,585 x 12); the taxable income
comes to Rs.1,63,020/- (Rs.3,43,020 - Rs.1,80,000), thus the total TDS
would be Rs.16,302/- (10% of Rs.1,63,020/-). The annual income of the
deceased would be Rs.3,26,718/- (Rs.3,43,020 - Rs.16,302/-). The
monthly income comes to Rs.27,226.5 (Rs.3,26,718 ÷ 12). After adding
30% towards future prospects, the monthly income of the deceased
comes to Rs.35,394.45 (Rs.27,226.5 + Rs.8,167.95). Out of this one-
fourth is to be deduced towards personal expenses, hence, the monthly
loss of dependency would be Rs.26,545.88 (Rs.35,394.45 - Rs.8,848.61),
which is rounded off to Rs.26,550/-. On the annual earnings applying the
multiplier of 13, the loss of dependency would come to Rs.41,41,800/-
(Rs.26,550 x 12 x 13). To this the non-pecuniary compensation of
Rs.2,35,000/- is added.
5. The learned counsel for the beneficiaries submits that interest at
the rate of 7.5% per annum granted on the awarded amount is on the
lower side. The Court finds substance in the said contention. Keeping in
mind the decision of the Supreme Court in Municipal Corporation of
Delhi vs. Association of Victims of the Uphaar Tragedy and Ors. (2011)
14 SCC 481 and the fact that this Court has consistently granted interest
at the rate of 9% per annum, interest shall be payable at 9% p.a. Thus,
MAC.APP.Nos.1013 of 2014 Page 3 of 4
the total compensation payable would be Rs.43,76,800/- alongwith
interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition
i.e. 22.12.2011 till its realization.
6. It is noted that respondent No.4/mother of deceased has since
passed away. Amended memo of parties is on record. There is no other
claimant to her share. Let it be apportioned equally amongst respondents
Nos. 1, 2 and 3. The awarded amount shall be released to the aforesaid
beneficiaries in terms of the Award. After the Award is satisfied in terms
of the aforesaid computation, the excess amount if any, alongwith
proportionate interest, shall be refunded to the appellant. The statutory
deposit too shall be refunded to the appellant.
7. The appeal alongwith pending applications stands disposed off in
the above terms.
NAJMI WAZIRI, J.
MAY 23, 2017
sb
