Delhi High Court
Neeru Garg & Ors. vs National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. on 18 September, 2017
$~19
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 18th September, 2017
+ MAC APPEAL No. 268/2017
NEERU GARG & ORS. ..... Appellants
Through: Mr. Ansuman Bal, Adv.
versus
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Pankaj Seth, Adv. for R-1.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. Jeevan Ram Garg, 37 years old, earning his livelihood from
business, suffered injuries in motor vehicular accident that occurred on
31.05.2012 at about 12:30PM due to negligent driving of tractor
bearing registration no. UK 08M 7314, admittedly insured against
third party risk for the period in question with the first respondent
(insurer) and died in the consequence. His wife and the father, they
being the appellants (claimants), instituted accident claim case (suit
no. 4863/2016) on 05.07.2012 seeking compensation. The tribunal
held inquiry and, by judgment dated 03.09.2016, awarded
compensation in the total sum of Rs. 17,65,000/-, directing the insurer
to pay with interest @ 9% per annum, calculating it thus:-
S.No. Heads Compensation
1. Loss of Dependency Rs. 15,70,000/-
2. Loss of love & affection Rs. 1,00,000/-
3. Loss of consortium to petitioner Rs. 50,000/-
no.1
4. Loss of estate Rs. 20,000/-
5. Funeral expenses Rs. 25,000/-
Total compensation Rs.17,65,000/-
2. The claimants by the appeal at hand submit that the loss of
dependency has not been properly calculated as the tribunal ignored
the fact that clear evidence had been adduced by copies of income-tax
returns (ITRs) for three consecutive years, they being assessment
years (AY) 2009 -2010, 2010-2011, 2011-12 indicating progressive
rise in income. It is the submission of the claimants that in such view
the element of future prospects of increase should have been factored
in. They are also dis-satisfied with the compensation awarded under
the non-pecuniary heads of damages.
3. Having heard the learned counsel on both sides and having
perused the record, this Court finds merit in both the contentions
mentioned above.
4. Indeed, the ITRs for AYs 2009-2010, 2010-2011 and 2011-
2012 reveal declaration of income of Rs. 1,52,400/-, Rs. 1,72,300/-
and Rs. 1,75,700/- respectively for three consecutive assessment years.
This would mean irrefutable evidence of progressive rise in the
earnings has been shown, which should have been a good reason to
factor in the element of future prospects of increase in income to the
extent of 50%. [see judgment dated 28.03.2016 in MAC.APP.
548/2013 United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kamla & Ors.].
5. It is, however, noted that the tribunal wrongly assumed the
amount of Rs. 18,700/- on account of income-tax liability and
deducted the same from the gross income for AY 2011-2012. It is
noted that the ITR for the said year as submitted before the tribunal
was not the complete document. Copy of the computation of the
income for the said year as per ITR formally submitted, has been
made available during the hearing before the Court. Going by the rates
of income-tax prevalent for the relevant assessment year (2011-2012),
it is noted that there was no tax liability. Thus, the entire income has
to be treated for the calculation of loss of dependency.
6. Adding the element of future prospects, the loss of dependency
is, thus, recalculated (1,75,700 x 150 ÷ 100 x 2 ÷ 3 x 15) Rs.
26,35,500/-, rounded off to Rs. 26,36,000/-.
7. In view of the ruling in MAC.APP.No.160/2015 Shriram
General Insurance Co Ltd v. Usha decided by this court on
05.05.2016, non-pecuniary damages are also deficient. The same are
increased to Rs. 1,50,000/- each towards loss of love & affection and
towards loss of consortium and Rs. 50,000/- each towards loss of
estate and funeral expense.
8. Hence, the total compensation payable in the case comes to
(26,36,000 + 1,50,000 + 1,50,000 + 50,000 + 50,000) Rs. 30,36,000/-.
(Rupees Thirty Lakhs Thirty Six Thousand Only.) The award is
enhanced accordingly. It shall carry interest as levied by the tribunal.
9. The apportionment of the award shall remain undisturbed. It
is, however, directed that the entire enhanced portion of the award
with corresponding interest shall be paid to the respective claimants in
the form of interest bearing fixed deposit receipts taken out in their
respective names from a nationalized bank for a period of ten years
with right to draw periodic interest.
10. The first respondent is directed to satisfy the enhanced award by
requisite deposit with the tribunal within thirty days.
11. The appeal is disposed of in above terms.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
SEPTEMBER 18, 2017
nk
