Delhi High Court
Oriental Insurance Co Ltd vs Lata Punjani & Ors on 26 September, 2019
KAMLESH KUMAR
31.10.2019 16:36
$~17
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Decided on: 26.09.2019
+ MAC.APP. 355/2018, CM APPL. 13956/2018 & CM APPL.
13957/2018
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Pankaj Seth, Advocate.
versus
LATA PUNJANI & ORS ..... Respondents
Through:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI
NAJMI WAZIRI, J. (Oral)
1. This appeal impugns the award of compensation dated 30.11.2017
passed by the learned MACT in MACT No. 357165/16 & Suit No.
684/2011, on the ground that instead of 1/3rd deduction towards 'personal
expenses', only 1/4th has been deducted by the learned Tribunal. It is the
appellant's case that the parents had pre-deceased the award of
compensation, therefore, only three dependants remained and in terms of
Sarla Verma & Ors. vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6
SCC 121, the deduction should have been 1/3rd towards 'personal expenses'.
2. The aforesaid argument is untenable for the reason that at the time of
filing of the claim petition, there were five dependents and their right to
claim dependency had already been placed before the learned Tribunal.
Whatever is subsequently awarded to them would be a part of their estate to
be shared by the surviving dependents and/or legal heirs. The pre-deceased
parents would not make a difference to the substance of the claim or the
number of persons who had filed the claim. Therefore, in view of the above,
the said argument is rejected.
3. The next argument is that in terms of the dicta of the Supreme Court
in National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors., (2017) 16 SCC
680, while granting compensation towards 'loss of future prospects', 40%
ought to have granted instead of 50%. The deceased was 35 years of age, he
was self-employed with a private company and was earning Rs. 7,500/- per
month. He also had other sources of income and the same has been reflected
in his ITRs. The learned Tribunal has dealt with the issue as under:-
"Addition towards Future Prospects:
(i) From the testimony of PW2 Lata Punjani, it is established
that deceased was working with M/s Sidhi Vinayak
Plastic Products Pvt. Ltd. From the ITRs, it has been
established that his income from the salary has grown
up from Rs. 53,600/- to Rs. 65,951/- in the assessment
year 2005-2006, which shows that he got substantial
increase in his salary. From this, it can safely be
culled out that he was the permanent of the company.
No doubt, petitioner failed to produce any
employment certificate from M/s Sidhi Vinayak
Plastic Products Pvt. Ltd., but this is not helpful to the
respondents in any manner as from his ITR, it has
been established that the deceased had regular
income.
(ii) From the passport (Ex. PW2/H), it is established that
date of birth of the deceased was May 22, 1970. Since
the accident had taken place on August 14, 2005, it
means that he was 35 years, 2 months and 23 days
old at the time of accident.
(iii) Since deceased was below 40 years old at the time of his
death, in view of the law laid down in Praney Sethi
case (supra), petitioners are entitled for 50% addition
towards future prospects. Accordingly, a sum of
Rs.32,976/- [50 % of Rs.65,951] is added in the
income of the deceased Vijay Punjani."
4. What emanates from the above is that the deceased would not be
considered permanently employed and in terms of the dicta of the Supreme
Court in Pranay Sethi (supra), para 59.4, the compensation towards 'loss of
future prospects' would be @ 40% only. The award is modified to that
extent.
5. The appellant is stated to have deposited the awarded amount after
deduction of the amounts in terms of the above. The Court would note that
one quantum of loss i.e. Rs. 40,000/- has been awarded towards 'loss of
consortium'. However, pursuant to the judgment of Supreme Court in
Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram &
Ors., 2018 SCC OnLine SC 1546, each of the claimants shall be entitled to
compensation @ Rs. 50,000/- for 'loss of love and affection' and Rs.
40,000/- for compensation towards 'loss of consortium', be it spousal, filial
or parental consortium. It is so granted.
6. Accordingly, the amount payable to the claimants is as under:
S.No. Particulars Amount
1. Loss of Dependency Rs. 11,07,977/-
[Rs. 65,951/- (annual income) x
140/100 (loss of future [email protected]
40%) x 16 (multiplier) x 75/100
(1/4th deduction towards personal
expenses)]
2. Loss of love and affection Rs. 2,50,000/-
[Rs. 50,000/-x 5 (claimants)]
3. Loss of consortium Rs. 1,60,000/-
[Rs. 40,000/-x 5 (claimants) less
Rs. 40,000/- (already granted)]
TOTAL Rs. 15,17,977/-
7. The aforesaid amount shall be deposited by the appellant, alongwith
interest @ 9% from the date of filing of the claim petition, before the
learned Tribunal within three weeks of receipt of copy of this order, to be
released to the beneficiary(ies) of the award in terms of the scheme of
disbursement specified in the award.
8. Statutory amount, alongwith interest accrued thereon, be refunded to
the appellant.
9. The appeal is disposed-off in the above terms.
NAJMI WAZIRI, J
SEPTEMBER 26, 2019
AB
