Delhi High Court
Karan Singh & Anr vs The Oriental Insurance Co Ltd & Ors on 31 January, 2020
$~15
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Decided on: 31.01.2020
+ MAC.APP. 42/2020
KARAN SINGH & ANR ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Nitin Yadav, Adv.
versus
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD & ORS..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Pankaj Seth, Adv. for R-1.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI
NAJMI WAZIRI, J. (Oral)
CM APPL. 3772/2020 (Delay) & MAC.APP. 42/2020
1. Issue notice.
2. Mr. Pankaj Seth, Advocate, accepts notice for respondent no.1.
3. At joint request the case is taken up for disposal
4. This appeal impugns the award of compensation dated 07.09.2019,
passed by learned MACT in Claim Petition bearing no. MACT No.
379/2018, insofar as it computed the "loss of dependency" on the basis of
minimum wages applicable at the relevant time instead of the ITRs which
were produced before the learned Tribunal.
5. In support of claim petition the claimant has brought on record the
ITR for A.Y. 2016-2017 showing the annual income of the deceased at Rs.
3,82,939/- on which an amount of tax Rs. 591/- was paid. Therefore, the
admitted income from business of the deceased was admittedly Rs.
3,75,319/- (Rs. 3,75,910 less Rs. 591/-). The victim passed away on
06.10.2017. His ITR for that year was filed on 25.07.2016, showing an
income from business and profession as Rs. 46,950/- per month against this
the tax amount of Rs. 2325/- was paid. The only reason why the said ITR
was not taken into consideration is because the claimant has not brought any
record or ledger books in this regard. The only reason why the ITR was not
taken into consideration is because the deceased was merely a matriculate in
the year 2015 and the learned Tribunal was of the view that he could not
establish his business in a short while. The aforesaid reasoning is flawed,
simply because an educational qualification, by itself does not guarantee
earnings of a person from business. Surely, there are many businesses being
run successfully, profitably and providing large sums of monies to the
business owner, despite the latter not having a formal education degree.
6. This Court in Royal Sundaram General Ins. Co. Ltd. vs. Kamlesh
Devi & Ors., MAC APP. 17/2019, decided on 06.09.2019 has held, inter
alia, as under:-
"8. The deceased was stated to be a priest in a religious place,
therefore, his earning would largely be dependent upon the
donations or contributions made to the religious institution.
However, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that
the deceased was a trader i.e. supplier of man power and his
record would show that his earnings were primarily from
supply of man power. However, this issue was never raised by
the claimants, therefore, it was not dealt with by the learned
Tribunal. ITRs filed shows his relevant income upto his demise
as under: Assessment Year Gross Total Income (in rupees)
2014-15 3,17,833 2015-16 3,74,623 2016-17 4,18,630 2017-18
5,06,210
9. What emanates from the above is that the increase in his
income between Assessment Years 2013-14 and 2014-15 was
3.5%. For the subsequent years, there were increase in income
as 18%, 12% and 21%. There is an increase and a decrease in
the amounts.
10. The returns were filed within the permissible statutory
period, there is no reason to doubt the same. Accordingly, the
income of the deceased as for the Assessment Year 2016-17 i.e.
which shows an increase of 12% will be taken into
consideration instead of for the year 2015-16, i.e. Rs.
from Rs. 4,18,630/-. However, Mr. Gupta, the learned counsel
for the insurance company states that this gross income
includes income from other sources Chapter (iv) F i.e. Rs.
1,980/-. Therefore, the same would be required to be deducted.
It was so ordered.
11. The gross income would, therefore, be Rs. 4,16,650/-
divided by 12 i.e. Rs. 34,721/-. Accordingly, the monies payable
to the appellant would be Rs. 34,721/-. There will be an
addition of 40% towards „loss of future prospects‟ in terms of
the dicta of Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Vs.
Pranay Sethi & Ors. (2017) 16 SCC 680 and 1/4th towards
personal expenses. The added money payable towards „loss of
dependency‟ would be Rs.
34,721x140/100x12x15x1/4x66.6/100= Rs.14,56,823/-."
7. SLP (Civil) No(s). 30009-30010/2019, against the aforesaid order was
dismissed by the Supreme Court on 06.01.2020.
8. Insofar as the deceased has established his capacity to earn the
amounts as per the ITRs in the immediately preceding two years, those ITRs
shall be taken into consideration for calculating "loss of dependency". The
impugned order apropos the amount awarded towards "loss of dependency"
is set aside and the case is remanded to the learned Tribunal for calculation
under the aforesaid head of compensation as directed herein above. Since
the remand is only apropos computation, the learned Tribunal is requested to
dispose-off the case preferably within a period of six weeks from the date
when it is next listed before it.
9. The parties shall appear before the learned Tribunal on 30.03.2020.
10. The claimants being the parents of the deceased would be entitled to
compensation towards „loss of love and affection‟ and „loss of consortium‟
@ Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 40,000/- respectively, in terms of the dicta of the
Supreme Court in Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram @
Chuhru Ram & Ors., (2018) 18 SCC 130.
11. The appeal is disposed-off in the above terms.
NAJMI WAZIRI, J
JANUARY 31, 2020
kb
