Punjab-Haryana High Court
National Insurance Company Ltd vs Sudarshan Rani And Ors on 13 March, 2024
Author: Archana Puri
Bench: Archana Puri
2024:PHHC:036527
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
(i) FAO-4577-2013 (O&M)
National Insurance Company Ltd.
...Appellant
VERSUS
Sudarshan Rani and others
...Respondents
(ii) FAO-8407-2014 (O&M)
Sudarshan Rani and others
...Appellants
VERSUS
National Insurance Company Ltd. and others
...Respondents
Date of Decision: March 13, 2024
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ARCHANA PURI
Present: Mr.R.C.Kapoor, Advocate
for the appellant (in FAO-4577-2013) and
for respondent No.3 (in FAO-8407-2014).
Mr.Rohit Kumar, Advocate
for the appellants (in FAO-8407-2014) and
for respondent No.1 to 4 (in FAO-4577-2013).
Mr.Ranjivan Singh, Ms.Kanika Toor and
Mr.Risham Garg, Advocates
for respondents No.5 and 6 (in FAO-4577-2013) and
for respondent No.1 and 2 (in FAO-8407-2014).
****
ARCHANA PURI, J.
These are two rival appeals filed by the insurance company as
2024:PHHC:036527
FAO-4577-2013 and connected case -2-
well as claimants to assail the Award dated 29.07.2013 passed by learned
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, on account of death of Buta Singh, in a
motor vehicular accident, which took place on 17.02.2012.
FAO-4577-2013 has been filed by the National Insurance
Company Ltd., thereby, assailing the quantum of compensation granted by
learned Tribunal to the claimants and FAO-8407-2014 has been filed by the
claimants, thereby, seeking enhancement of the compensation, as awarded
by learned Tribunal.
So far as, the factum of accident and manner of its taking place
is concerned, none of the respondent, including insurance company, had
assailed the same. Rather, the insurance company has confined its claim
only qua quantum of compensation. Therefore, there is no necessity, as
such, to further subject the aforesaid issue to judicial scrutiny.
Be it noted that the accident had taken place on 17.02.2012, on
account of rash and negligent driving of Canter bearing registration No.HR-
65-1149.
In the claim petition, deceased Buta Singh was asserted to be 57
years old, at the time of accident and that he was working as Block
Education Officer, Mandi Phul, at the relevant time and was drawing net
salary of Rs.44,007/- per month and after making deductions, the salary
being paid was Rs.42,447/-. The aforesaid fact stands established from the
evidence brought on record. Though, in the claim petition, it was also
asserted about the deceased to be earning Rs.10,000/- from milch animals,
but the said assertion was discarded, on account of no evidence, coming on
record.
2024:PHHC:036527
FAO-4577-2013 and connected case -3-
Considering the salary certificate Ex.C2, the income of Buta
Singh was taken as Rs.44,007/- per month. After deducting 1/4th from the
income, as 'personal expenses', the dependency of the claimants was taken
as Rs.33006/-. Taking it to be so, annual dependency was worked upon as
Rs.3,96,072/- and multiplier of '9' was applied and compensation was
worked upon as Rs.35,64,648/-. Besides the same, Rs.5000/- each was
granted towards 'funeral expenses' and 'loss of estate'. Another sum of
Rs.5,000/- was granted to claimant No.1-widow of the deceased, on the
count of 'loss of consortium'. In total, the compensation worked upon was
Rs.35,79,648/-, which was rounded off as Rs.35,80,000/-. The said amount
of compensation was apportioned to the extent of Rs.7 lakh to each of the
children of the deceased i.e. Parminder Singh, Amrinder Singh and Gurpreet
Kaur and Rs.14,80,000/- was granted to Sudarshan Rani, widow of the
deceased.
At the very outset, learned counsel for the insurance company
has assiduously submitted that salary certificate, coming on record, for the
month of January 2012 Ex.C2, has been erroneously considered by learned
Tribunal. The total salary of Rs.44,007/- has been considered as monthly
earnings, whereas, it is submitted that income tax was required to be
deducted. Also, besides the same, it is submitted by learned counsel for the
insurance company that though, the deceased is stated to be 57 years old, but
however, from the evidence, it is established that the deceased was to retire
after four months, when the accident had taken place. In this regard, learned
counsel for the insurance company has made reference to the cross-
examination of sons of the deceased, when they stepped into witness box as
2024:PHHC:036527
FAO-4577-2013 and connected case -4-
CW-1 and CW-2.
In the light of the same, it is submitted that the compensation,
so worked upon by learned Tribunal is on higher side, which calls for the
reduction. As such, a prayer has been made for the acceptance of the appeal
by learned counsel for the insurance company and consequential reduction
to be made in the quantum of the compensation, already awarded.
So far as, employment of the deceased is concerned, there is no
dispute between the parties. Even qua age, it is pertinent to mention that
though, it is categoric claim of the claimants that the deceased was 57 years
at the time of accident, but however, Parminder Singh, one of the sons of the
deceased, had stepped into witness box as CW-1 and while facing cross-
examination, he has admitted that his father was to retire after four months
from the date of the accident. To the similar effect, is the admission coming
from the mouth of CW-2 Amarinder Singh, the other son of the deceased.
As such, in the absence of date of birth, specifically coming on record, it
stands established that the deceased was about 57 years 8 months old, at the
time of accident. The age of the retirement was 58 years. As such, the
compensation could not be worked upon, on the basis of the salary
certificate only. For the period of four months i.e. till the retirement of the
deceased, the compensation, ought to be worked separately and
compensation, for the post-retiral period, ought to be worked separately.
Before coming to the calculation, in the manner aforesaid, it is
also pertinent to mention that learned counsel for the insurance company has
also submitted that deduction, on the count of 'personal expenses' ought to
be 1/3rd and not 1/4th, as done by learned Tribunal, as he submits that both
2024:PHHC:036527
FAO-4577-2013 and connected case -5-
the sons of the deceased were self-dependent and thus, cannot be taken to be
dependent upon the deceased. He has pointed out to the cross-examination
of both the sons of the deceased, where, they admitted about themselves to
be aged persons, married and also about themselves to be well educated and
following their own vocations. However, on this count, the submission so
made in not tenable.
In this regard, beneficial reference is made to decision rendered
in National Insurance Company Limited v. Birender, (2020) 11 SCC 356 ,
wherein, it was held that even the major married and earning sons of the
deceased, being legal representatives have a right to apply for compensation
and it would be the bounden duty of the Tribunal to consider the application
irrespective of the fact, whether the concerned legal representative was fully
dependent on the deceased and not to limit the claim towards conventional
heads only.
In the light of the same, it is pertinent to mention that even
though, sons of the deceased are well educated and married and may be
settled in their own lives, but it cannot be said that they were not dependent
upon their father. It is further pertinent to mention that the word 'dependent'
has a different meaning in different connotation. Some may be dependent in
terms of money and other may be dependent in terms of service.
Thus, dependency is a relevant criteria to claim compensation for loss
of dependency. It does not mean financial dependency only. Dependency
includes gratuitous service dependency, physical dependency, emotional
dependency, psychological dependency, and so on and so forth, which can
never be equated in terms of money. Thus, considering the same, major sons
2024:PHHC:036527
FAO-4577-2013 and connected case -6-
of deceased, ought not to be deprived of the compensation, to be so worked
upon.
In view of the aforesaid conclusion and keeping in view the
number of the dependents/claimants to be four in number, as per Smt.Sarla
Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and anr., 2009(3) RCR (Civil) 77,
deduction has to be to the extent of 1/4th. Further, it is pertinent to mention
that as per National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others,
2017(4) RCR (Civil) 1009, the established income means the income minus
tax component.
In the given circumstances, there ought to be deduction made,
on the count of income tax from the gross salary of the deceased. While
considering the salary certificate Ex.C2, the deduction, on the count of
income tax has already been made, which is to the extent of Rs.1500/-.
While doing so, the net pay works out to be Rs.42,447/- per month, which is
to be considered, as income of the deceased.
For the period, till the retirement of the deceased in normal course,
this is the amount so taken and the total earnings for four months, works out
to be Rs.42447x4=Rs.1,69,788/-. From the aforesaid amount, 1/4th is
deducted, on the count of 'personal expenses' and the residue works out to
be Rs.1,27,341/-. This is taken as amount of dependency of the claimants
for the period of four months.
Had the deceased remained alive, after superannuation, at the
age of 58 years, he would have drawn the pension, which is approximately
50% of the last drawn salary, which, in the present case, considering the
salary certificate Ex.C2, would have been approximately Rs.21,000/-.
2024:PHHC:036527
FAO-4577-2013 and connected case -7-
Keeping in view the age of the deceased, as per Pranay Sethi's
case (supra), addition of 15%, on the count of 'future prospects' ought to be
made. Thus, after addition of future prospects, the earnings are worked upon
as Rs.21000+Rs.3150(15%)=Rs.24,150/-. From the aforesaid amount, 1/4th
is to be deducted as 'personal expenses' and thus, the residue amount comes
to be Rs.18,113/-, annual whereof, comes to be Rs.2,17,356/-
Considering the age of the deceased, as per Sarla Verma's case
(supra), appropriate and suitable multiplier, to be applied is '9' and by
applying the same, the loss of dependency, works out to be Rs.217356x9=
Rs.19,56,204/-.
Besides the aforesaid, under the conventional heads, as per
Pranay Sethi's case (supra), the compensation ought to be paid, on the count
of 'loss of consortium', 'loss of estate' and 'funeral expenses'. As per
'Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram
and others, 2018 (18) SCC 130', whosoever are the dependents of the
deceased/claimants, are entitled to 'parental', 'spousal' or 'filial'
consortium, as required.
In view of the same, appellants-claimants are entitled to
compensation, on the aforesaid counts. However, taking into consideration
the enhancement as provided in Pranay Sethi's case (supra), to the extent of
10%, after every three years of passing of the judgment, the compensation
payable, on the count of 'loss of consortium' is to the extent of Rs.48,400/-,
to each of the appellants-claimants and on the similar pattern, on the counts
of 'loss of estate' and 'funeral expenses', the compensation payable, comes
to be Rs.18,150/-, on each count.
2024:PHHC:036527
FAO-4577-2013 and connected case -8-
Considering the same, the compensation payable to appellants-
claimants, on account of death of Buta Singh, is re-computed, as herein
given:-
Loss of dependency : Rs.19,56,204/-
Loss of consortium : Rs.1,93,600/-
(four dependents)
Loss of estate : Rs.18,150/-
Funeral expenses : Rs.18,150/-
Total : Rs.21,86,104/-
To the aforesaid amount, addition of Rs.1,27,341/-, as worked
upon aforesaid, which was for the period of four months, has to be made and
thus, the total compensation works out to be Rs.23,13,445/-.
As such, the compensation granted by learned Tribunal is scaled
down from Rs.35,80,000/- to Rs.23,13,445/-. The differential amount, shall
be bifurcated amongst the claimants, in accord with the apportionment made
by learned Tribunal and if amount was disbursed, the necessary recovery
proceedings be conducted, as per law.
With the above observations, the appeal filed by the insurance
company i.e. FAO-4577-2013 stands allowed, whereas, appeal filed by the
claimants i.e. FAO-8407-2014 stands dismissed.
March 13, 2024 (ARCHANA PURI)
Vgulati JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes
Whether reportable Yes/No
