Reliance Gen Ins Co Ltd vs Anita & Ors
2018 Latest Caselaw 4540 Del

$~24
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                 Date of Decision: 03rd August, 2018

+     MAC.APP. 400/2018 & CM APPL. 16320/2018

      RELIANCE GEN INS CO LTD                ..... Appellant
                    Through: Mr.Arihant Jain, Advocate                     for
                             Mr.S.D.Raman, Advocate

                         versus

      ANITA & ORS                                        ..... Respondents
                         Through:      Mr.S.N. Parashar, Advocate for R-1
                                       to R-4

      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA

                           JUDGMENT (ORAL)

1. The appellant has challenged the award of Claims Tribunal whereby compensation of Rs.29,56,000/- has been awarded to respondent No.1 to 4. The appellant is seeking reduction of the award amount.

2. The accident dated 08th April, 2009 resulted in the death of Chitra Pal Singh. The deceased was aged 49 years and was working with Delhi Police as Head Constable and was drawing a salary of Rs.18,968/-. The deceased was survived by two sons and a daughter who claimed compensation.

3. The Claims Tribunal took the income of the deceased as Rs.18,968/- per month, added 30% towards future prospects, deducted 1/4th towards personal expenses and applied the multiplier of 13 to compute the loss of dependency as Rs.28,85,025/-.

4. The Claims Tribunal awarded Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses. The total compensation awarded is Rs.29,56,000/-.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant urged following submissions at the time of hearing:

(i) The personal expenses of the deceased be increased from 1/4 th to 1/3rd as one son was not dependent upon the deceased.

(ii) The deceased was contributory negligent as there was a head-on collision between the two vehicles.

(iii) The family of the deceased received the ex-gratia amount of Rs.3,00,000/- from Delhi Police Welfare Society.

(iv) The family pension being received by the family of the deceased be deducted from the compensation amount.

6. The deceased left behind four legal representatives namely widow, two sons and one daughter who were dependent at the time of accident and therefore, 1/4th of the personal expenses is in order.

7. With respect to the plea of contributory negligence, the Claims Tribunal has held that the offending vehicle came on the wrong side of the road and hit the deceased. On the basis of evidence lead by the claimants and police record, there is no infirmity in the finding of the negligence by the Claims Tribunal.

8. The ex-gratia amount of Rs.5,00,000/- received by the claimants from Delhi Police Welfare Society is not linked to the accidental death as the Delhi Police Welfare Society is a Society based on contribution by the employees for the welfare of the family of the deceased employees who die on duty and is, therefore, not deductable from the compensation amount.

Reference be made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Shashi Sharma and ors., (2016) 9 SCC 627 in which the Supreme Court held that only pecuniary advantage received on account of the death or injury in a motor accident, is deductible from the compensation amount. However, if the amount would be due to the dependents of the deceased even otherwise, the same shall not be deductible from the compensation amount. The Supreme Court further held that the benefits extended to the dependants of the deceased government employee including family pension, Life Insurance, Provident Fund etc., cannot be allowed to be deducted. The relevant portion of Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Shashi Sharma and ors (Supra) is reproduced hereunder:

"12. ........the "pecuniary advantage" from whatever source must correlate to the injury or death caused on account of motor accident.....

xxx xxx xxx

16. The principle discernable from the exposition in Helen C.Rebello's case (supra) is that if the amount "would be due to the dependants of the deceased even otherwise", the same shall not be deductible from the compensation amount payable under the Act of 1988. At the same time, it must be borne in mind that loss of income is a significant head under which compensation is claimed in terms of the Act of 1988............

xxx xxx xxx

22. .....other benefits extended to the dependents of the deceased Government employee in terms of sub-rule (2) to sub-rule (5) of Rule 5 including family pension, Life Insurance, Provident Fund etc., that must remain unaffected and cannot be allowed to be deducted, which, any way would be paid to the dependents of the deceased Government employee, applying the principle expounded in Helen C.Rebello and Patricia Jean Mahajan's cases (supra)."

(Emphasis Supplied)

9. There is no merit in the appeal which is hereby dismissed.

10. List for disbursement of compensation amount on 07 th September, 2018.

11. Copy of this judgment be given dasti to the counsels for the parties under the signature of the Court Master.

AUGUST 3, 2018                                             J.R.MIDHA, J.
ds