Delhi High Court
Reliance General Insurance ... vs Dilpreet Bhasin & Ors on 9 April, 2019
$~17
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ MAC.APP. 716/2017 AND CM APPL. 28951/2017
% Judgment delivered on: 09.04.2019
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMAPANY LTD
..... Appellant
Through Mr. Joy Basu, Sr. Advocate with
Ms.Prerna Mehta, Adv.
versus
DILPREET BHASIN & ORS ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Iqbal Singh, Adv. for R-1 & R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.CHAWLA
JUDGMENT
A.K. CHAWLA, J. (ORAL)
1. By the instant appeal, the appellant-insurer of Honda City Car bearing
registration No. DL 13 CC 3773 in short 'the offending vehicle', which was
involved in the motor accident on 21.11.2015, resulting in the death of
Sachpreet Singh in short 'the deceased', in effect, assails the impugned
judgment-award dated 26.05.2017 passed by MACT-II (North), restricted to
the quantum of compensation. In view thereof, advertence to the other
factual aspects to maintain the claim petition, is not called for.
2. Undisputedly, the deceased was aged about 25 years at the time of his
death. At the relevant time, he is said to be employed with M/s Ernst &
Young, Golf View Corporate Tower, may be, as a Chartered Accountant.
The tribunal has awarded the compensation to the claimants-respondent
Nos. 1 and 2, as under :
"1. Loss of dependency Rs. 1,0448,797.50
2. Loss of love and affection Rs. 3,00,000/-
4. Loss of estate Rs. 50,000/-
5. Funeral expenses Rs. 50,000/-
Total Rs.1,08,48,797.50
Rounded off Rs. 1,08,48,800/-"
3. Mr. Basu, ld. Senior Counsel for the appellant, strenuously contends
that the award of compensation under the primary head of loss of
dependency, is erroneously founded taking the income of the deceased to be
Rs.8,77,500/-. It comes to be pointed out that this figure of Rs.8,77,500/-,
finds its origin in the appointment letter dated 11.11.2015 Ex.PW4/2, which,
purportedly, was issued in close proximity of the occurrence of the incident,
on 21.11.2015. In his submissions, but, for this appointment letter, the
claimants-respondent Nos. 1 and 2, had miserably failed to adduce any
cogent evidence to prove such sum to be the actual income of the deceased.
In support of his such submissions, Mr. Basu, ld. Senior counsel, has also
drawn advertence to Form-16 Ex.PW4/4, which is for the assessment year
2016-17 and takes into its fold the time of the accident in question. As per
this Form 16 Ex.PW4/4, the total income, for which the taxes were
deducted, was Rs.4,12,896/-. Mr. Basu, ld. Senior counsel for the appellant
also strenuously contends that the figure of Rs.8,77,500/-, as finds mention
in the letter dated 11.11.2015 Ex.PW4/2, ipso facto also cannot be construed
to be the actual income, inasmuch as, the communication dated 05.08.2015
Ex.PW4/1 of M/s Ernst & Young, by itself states that this figure of
Rs.8,77,500/- is the cost to the company, which would have inbuilt elements
towards certain allowance and costs, personal to the deceased.
4. Mr. Iqbal Singh, ld. Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 on his
part, but, for seeking to explain, placing reliance on letters Ex.PW4/1 and
PW4/2, that the evidence adduced before the Tribunal, was sufficient to
infer the income of the deceased to be Rs.8,77,500/-, is at pains to justify his
submission. During the course of hearing, he has taken the Court to final
settlement sheet Ex.PW4/6 purportedly issued by M/s Ernst & Young. When
adverted to this document, one finds that this final settlement sheet reflects
the gross earnings of the deceased to be Rs.1,01,482/-. Figure of gross
earnings reflected in this final settlement sheet, by itself, does not co-relate
with the actual income of Rs.8,77,500/-, as finds mention in the
communications dated 05.08.2015 Ex.PW4/1 and dated 11.11.2015
Ex.PW4/2.
5. In the event, the deceased was actually paid an amount of
Rs.8,77,500/- or a part thereof, as his income from salary, the claimants
failed to adduce cogent evidence to that effect. The Tribunal, on its part, has
not even adverted to what all evidence was adduced on record. In view
thereof, the primary head of compensation being the loss of
income/dependency and the assessment being not founded on any cogent
evidence, lest, miscarriage of justice occurs, this Court deems it just and
proper, to grant another opportunity to the parties to lead their respective
evidence to prove their respective claims/pleas on this main head of award
of compensation. While doing so, it is also observed that the compensation
awarded under the other heads is not in consonance with the ratio of the
judgment in 'National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and
Ors', 2017 SCC OnLine SC 1270 inasmuch as Pranay Sethi's case (supra)
provides for compensation under the heads of consortium; loss of estate;
and, funeral expenses in the sums of Rs.40,000/-, Rs.15,000/- and
Rs.15,000/- respectively, only.
6. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned award, as regards the
quantum of compensation, is set aside. Parties are directed to appear before
the concerned Tribunal on 25.04.2019, when, the Tribunal shall proceed to
afford reasonable opportunities to the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to lead
evidence to prove the income of the deceased by cogent evidence, in
addition to the evidence already adduced. Having afforded such
opportunities, reasonable opportunity shall equally be given to the appellant-
insurer to lead their evidence in defence and then, to claimants, in rebuttal,
if, desired. Having afforded such opportunities, the Tribunal shall proceeded
to give its findings afresh, taking into account the entire evidence adduced
on record and conclude the proceedings within six months from today.
Since the subject matter is being remanded back for re-assessment of
compensation under all the heads, Mr. Basu, ld. Senior counsel for the
appellant submits that the issue of multiplier may also be required to be gone
into afresh. Mr. Iqbal Singh, ld. Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 on his
part submits that the issue of deduction towards personal expenses of the
deceased may also be kept open. Keeping in view the totality of the facts
and circumstances, it is made clear that all the pleas of the parties on the
remand being made are kept open to be considered afresh by the Tribunal.
7. Appeal and the pending application(s) stand disposed off in the above
terms. Statutory deposit with interest, if any, be released to the appellant.
A. K. CHAWLA, J
APRIL 09, 2019
rc
