Punjab-Haryana High Court
Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd vs Rohit Yadav And Ors on 1 March, 2025
Author: Archana Puri
Bench: Archana Puri
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
(i) FAO-5323-2017 (O&M)
Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd.
...Appellant
VERSUS
Rohit Yadav and others
...Respondents
(ii) FAO-5324-2017 (O&M)
Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd.
...Appellant
VERSUS
Rohit Yadav and others
...Respondents
(iii) XOBJC-176-CII-2018 (O&M)
Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd.
...Appellant
VERSUS
Rohit Yadav and others
...Respondents
(iv) XOBJC-258-CII-2018 (O&M)
Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd.
...Appellant
VERSUS
Rohit Yadav and others
...Respondents
Date of Decision: March 01, 2025
VINEET GULATI
2025.03.07 12:48
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
Chandigarh
FAO-5323-2017 and connected cases -2-
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ARCHANA PURI
Present: Mr.Neeraj Khanna, Advocate for
Mr.Ravinder Arora, Advocate
for the appellant.
Mr.Ashish Gupta, Advocate
for respondents No.1 and 2/cross-objectors.
Mr.Sahil Mehra, Advocate
for Mr.Nipun Vashisht, Advocate
for respondents No.3 and 4.
****
ARCHANA PURI, J.
These are two appeals i.e. FAOs-5323 and 5324-2017, filed at
the instance of appellant-Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd., to
assail the Award dated 02.01.2017 passed by learned Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, vide which, the compensation was granted on account of
deaths of Bijender Singh and Indrawati, in a motor vehicular accident.
In the aforesaid appeals, cross objections, i.e. XOBJC-176-CII-
2018 and XOBJC-258-CII-2018, have also been filed by the claimants,
thereby, seeking enhancement of the compensation.
The facts germane, to be noticed, are as follows:-
That, on 10/11.06.2015, the claimants along with their parents
Bijender Singh and Indrawati, besides various other persons, were coming
by Tata Safari bearing registration No.HR-26BY-0474 after visiting
Vrindavan. One truck bearing registration No.RJ-02GA-9254, driven by
respondent No.1-Ram Avtar, in a rash and negligent manner, which was
going ahead of them, all of a sudden, had applied the brakes of the truck,
while coming on wrong side, as a result whereof, the Tata Safari got
FAO-5323-2017 and connected cases -3-
entangled in the same and was badly damaged. Bijender Singh and
Indrawati had suffered fatal injuries, whereas, other occupants had also
suffered injuries. FIR was got registered qua the accident in question by Raj
Hans, co-passenger.
The claimants, who are children of deceased Bijender Singh and
Indrawati had filed the respective claim petitions for seeking compensation,
on account of death of their parents.
FAO-5323-2017 relates to death of Bijender Singh, whereas,
FAO-5324-2017 relates to death of Indrawati. Even, cross-objections have
been filed by the claimants, in both the appeals, for seeking enhancement of
the compensation.
Even though, the factum and manner of taking place of the
accident was assailed in the grounds of appeal, but however, learned counsel
for the insurance company, during the course of arguments, has restricted his
submissions, only with regard to seeking reduction of the compensation
awarded in both the claim petitions.
In this backdrop, firstly, let us consider the claim qua death of
Indrawati, who was a housewife. From the evidence on record, it is
established that deceased Indrawati was 45 years old, at the relevant time.
However, her earnings were taken as Rs.3000/- per month, annual whereof
is Rs.36,000/-. Considering her age to be 45 years, multiplier of '14' was
applied and compensation was worked upon as Rs.5,04,000/-. Besides the
aforesaid amount, another amount of Rs.20,000/- was granted, on the count
of 'loss of estate', Rs.20,000/- towards 'funeral expenses' and Rs.20,000/-,
on account of non-pecuniary damages as well as medical expenditure of
FAO-5323-2017 and connected cases -4-
Rs.41,317/-, as per the bills Ex.P1, P5 and P6 was also granted. Thus, in
total, the compensation to the extent of Rs.6,05,317/- was granted.
So far as, deceased Bijender Singh is concerned, learned
Tribunal had considered that deceased was allegedly receiving pension of
Rs.15,795/-, on account of being Ex-serviceman. Further, he was re-
employed as Maths Instructor in ITI Berli Kalan, Rewari and his earnings
were Rs.38,113/-.
So far as, the amount of pension is concerned, the same was excluded
from consideration by learned Tribunal, and thus took his earning as
Rs.38,113/-, annual whereof was worked upon as Rs.4,57,356/-. The
income tax was deducted as Rs.19,298/- and the residue amount was worked
upon as Rs.4,38,058/-. On the basis thereof, bifurcation on monthly basis
was done and the earnings were taken as Rs.36,505/- and multiplier of '13'
was applied. However, 1/3rd ought to be deducted, but however, the same
was erroneously not done by learned Tribunal. On account of 'future
prospects' 30% was added and the compensation worked by learned
Tribunal, in tabular form, is reproduced as herein given:-
Income of deceased per month Rs.36,505/-
(after deduction of income tax)
Add 30% for the loss of future income Rs.10,952/-
Total monthly Income with inclusion of 30% Rs.47,457/-
Annual income (47,457x12) Rs.5,69,484/-
Loss of dependency (5,69,484x13) Rs.74,03,292/-
Funeral expenses Rs.20,000/-
Loss of estate Rs.20,000/-
Non-pecuniary damages Rs.20,000/-
Total Rs.74,63,292/-
However, the compensation worked upon aforesaid in both the
FAO-5323-2017 and connected cases -5-
claim petitions, do call for re-computation.
At the very outset, it is pertinent to mention that the
compensation worked upon in both the claim petition was only granted to
claimant No.2-Kumari Pooja Yadav, daughter of both the deceased,
whereas, claimant No.1-Rohit Yadav was denied compensation, who is
major son of both the deceased.
No doubt, the son of both the deceased was major but however,
outrightly, it cannot be concluded about he is not dependent upon the
deceased. It should be noticed that in the Indian society, the children as well
as the parents remain dependent upon each other, at various stages of life. It
is pertinent to mention that the word 'dependent' has a different meaning in
different connotation. Some may be dependent in terms of money and
others may be dependent in terms of service. Thus, dependency is a relative
criteria to claim compensation for loss of dependency. It does not mean
financial only. It also 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, even the major son of both the deceased, ought not to
be deprived of the compensation. Beneficial reference in this regard is made
to National Insurance Company Limited v. Bijender Singh, (2020) 11 SCC
Firstly, let us consider the compensation to be granted, on
account of death of Indrawati. Keeping in view the date of accident, it is
pertinent to mention that, at the relevant time, the earnings of unskilled
worker was Rs.5639/- per month. As such, it is less than the earnings of
FAO-5323-2017 and connected cases -6-
unskilled worker, which has been taken into consideration by learned
Tribunal. The earnings so taken by learned Tribunal are miserably on lower
side.
Time and again, it has been held by the Courts that the
compensation awarded should be 'just' and 'reasonable'. Any mode or
method may be adopted for assessing the compensation, but the same, has to
be considered, in the background of 'just' compensation, which is pivotal
consideration. In any case, the multifarious duties rendered by the
homemaker to the house, cannot be equated lower than that of unskilled
worker.
One has to keep in mind that valuable services rendered by the
homemaker and the same, in any manner, cannot be computed in terms of
money, which is less than the earnings of the unskilled worker. The term
'services' is required to be given a broad meaning and must be construed by
taking into consideration the loss of personal care and attention given by the
deceased to her family.
Considering the same, beneficial reference is also made to Kirti
and another v/s Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., 2021(2) SCC 166,
wherein, it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the effect of
inflation, ought to be taken into consideration and the future prospects also,
are required to be taken into consideration, on the notional income of the
housewife.
Considering the aforesaid and also taking into consideration, the
minimum wages of the unskilled worker, in the modest estimate, while
having realistic approach, the earnings of deceased Indrawati can
FAO-5323-2017 and connected cases -7-
conveniently be taken as Rs.6000/- per month. To the said amount, addition
on the count of 'future prospects' ought to be made. Considering the age of
the deceased to be 45 years, as per National Insurance Company Limited
vs. Pranay Sethi and others, 2017(4) RCR (Civil) 1009, addition of 25%
ought to be made, on the count of 'future prospects'. Thus, the income of the
deceased is worked upon as Rs.6000+1500=Rs.7500/-, annual whereof
comes to be Rs.90,000/-.
As per Smt.Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and
anr., 2009(3) RCR (Civil) 77, deduction ought to be made to the extent of
1/3rd as 'personal expenses'. Taking it to be so, the annual loss of
dependency is worked upon as Rs.90000-30000=Rs.60,000/-.
Considering the age of the deceased, as per Sarla Verma's case
(supra), the appropriate and suitable multiplier to be applied is '14', as
applied by learned Tribunal. Thus, by applying the same, the loss of
dependency, works out to be Rs.60000x14=Rs.8,40,000/-.
Besides the aforesaid, as per 'Magma General Insurance
Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others, 2018 (18)
SCC 130', each of the appellants-claimants are entitled to 'parental',
'spousal' or 'filial' consortium, as required. Considering the same, as per
Pranay Sethi's case (supra), an amount of Rs.40,000/- is required to be
granted to the dependents, which also called for further enhancement to the
extent of 10%, after period of every three years of pronouncement of the
judgment and taking it to be so, the compensation, on the count of 'loss of
consortium', at present, works out to be Rs.48,400/- to each of the claimants
i.e. Rs.48400x2=Rs.96,800/- and likewise, on the counts of 'loss of estate'
FAO-5323-2017 and connected cases -8-
and 'funeral expenses', the compensation payable, comes to be Rs.18,150/-,
on each count.
On account of medical bills Ex.P1, Ex.P5 and Ex.P6, proved in
evidence, the claimants are also entitled to an amount of Rs.41,317/-, as
granted by learned Tribunal.
Considering the same, the compensation payable to claimants,
on account of death of Indrawati, is re-computed, as herein given:-
Loss of dependency : Rs.8,40,000/-
Loss of consortium : Rs.96,800/
Loss of estate : Rs.18,150/-
Funeral expenses : Rs.18,150/-
Medical expenses : Rs.41,317/-
Total : Rs.10,14,417/-
Now, coming to the claim for compensation qua death of
Bijender Singh. From the evidence on record, it stands established that
Bijender Singh was Ex-serviceman and was receiving pension of
Rs.15,795/- and he was re-employed as Maths Instructor in ITI Berli Kalan,
Rewari and his salary was Rs.38,113/-. However, the pension was
erroneously not taking into consideration by learned Tribunal. In this
regard, it is pertinent to mention that as per Pranay Sethi's case (supra), for
the purposes of assessment of the compensation, actual salary ought to be
taken minus tax component. However, the deduction on account of
pension/family pension, ought not to be made, while working upon the loss
of dependency.
In this regard, suffice to make reference to Narinder Kaur and others
VINEET GULATI vs. Jagmeet Singh and others, 2024 NCPHHC 15790, Helen C. Rebello vs
FAO-5323-2017 and connected cases -9-
Maharashtra SRTC, reported as (1999) 1 SCC 90' and 'Lal Dei and others
vs Himachal Road Transport", (2007) 8 SCC 319'. On the basis thereof,
the amount of pension, ought to be taken into consideration.
Considering the same, now for the purpose of 'work on' of the
compensation, the total earnings of deceased Bijender Singh, to be
considered are Rs.38,113/- per month, as salary from re-employment and
Rs.15,795/- per month, as pension, the total whereof, comes to be
Rs.53,908/- and the annual earnings comes to be Rs.6,46,896/-.
As per the tax slab, prevalent in the year 2015-2016, the income
upto Rs.3,00,000/- was exempted from tax. However, from the income
bracket of Rs.3,00,000-5,00,000/-, income tax payable was 10%, which is to
the extent of Rs.20,000/-. Furthermore, for the income bracket of
Rs.5,00,000-10,00,000/-, the tax payable was 20%. After deduction of
Rs.5,00,000/-, the residue taxable amount works out to be Rs.1,46,896/- and
therefore, working upon the tax on this amount @ 20%, it comes to be
Rs.29,379/-. Thus, the total tax payable, comes to be Rs.49,379/-. After
making deduction of the aforesaid extent of income tax amount, the residue
annual income, comes out to be Rs.6,46,896-49,379=Rs.5,97,517/-.
As per Sarla Verma's case (supra), considering the number of
dependents, deduction to the extent of 1/3rd, on the count of 'personal
expenses', ought to be made and as such, the loss of dependency comes to
be Rs.5,97,517-1,99,172=Rs.3,98,345/-. Considering the age of the deceased
to be 48 years, as per Pranay Sethi's case (supra), addition of 30% ought to
be made, on the count of 'future prospects' and thus, the income of the
deceased is worked upon as Rs.3,98,345+1,19,503=Rs.5,17,848/-.
FAO-5323-2017 and connected cases -10-
Considering the age of the deceased, as per Sarla Verma's case
(supra), the appropriate and suitable multiplier, to be applied is '13', and
thus, by applying the same, the loss of dependency, works out to be
Rs.517848x13=Rs.67,32,024/-.
As already observed aforesaid in the claim qua Indrawati, on
account of death of Bijender Singh, also the claimants are entitled to
compensation under the conventional heads i.e. Rs.96,800/-, on the count of
'loss of consortium' and Rs.18,150/- on each counts of 'loss of estate' and
'funeral expenses'.
Considering the same, the compensation payable to claimants,
on account of death of Bijender Singh, is re-computed, as herein given:-
Loss of dependency : Rs.67,32,024/-
Loss of consortium : Rs.96,800/
Loss of estate : Rs.18,150/-
Funeral expenses : Rs.18,150/-
Total : Rs.68,65,124/-
Proceeding further, it is pertinent to mention that learned
Tribunal had only granted compensation to daughter of both the deceased.
During the course of evidence, it came forth in the testimony of PW-3 Ram
Avtar, who was working as Deputy Superintendent, Government ITI. Berli
Kalan, Rewari that under the Haryana Government rules applicable to the
department, their department is paying basic pay+DA+medical to the
daughter of deceased Bijender Sinh, till her marriage or upto 25 years of age,
whichever is earlier.
However, this aspect, as such, has not been taken into
FAO-5323-2017 and connected cases -11-
consideration by learned Tribunal. Though, specific amount, as such, is not
coming forth, which is received by Kumari Pooja Yadav, from the
Government, but it should be noted that at the time of filing of the claim
petition in the year 2015, Kumari Pooja Yadav was stated to be 20 years old.
By this time, even if, she is presumed to be unmarried, but however, she has
definitely attained the age of 25 years. The total amount, so received under
the compassionate rules, ought to be taken into consideration. In this regard,
suffice to make reference to decision rendered in CA No.9654 of 2016, titled
as Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Shashi Sharma and others,
decided on 23.09.2016.
In the given circumstances, the compensation worked upon
aforesaid, has to be awarded to both the claimants, in the ratio of 40:60, as
detailed aforesaid. In the light of the same, before disbursement of the
compensation worked upon aforesaid in both the cases, learned Tribunal
shall verify about the fact of extent of amount received by claimant No.2-
Kumari Pooja Yadav, being beneficiary under the policy of Haryana
Government, by way of taking of an affidavit of claimant No.2 and verify
the same, at its own level and also from the concerned department. Upon
such verification, the amount so received under the aforesaid rules, shall be
deducted from the compensation, as now worked upon aforesaid, qua
deceased Bijender Singh.
The amount of compensation, as now worked upon in both the
cases, shall be disbursed to the claimants-cross objectors, in the ratio of
40:60. The claimants-cross objectors, shall be entitled to the interest, at the
rate of 6% per annum, from the date of filing of the claim petition, till
FAO-5323-2017 and connected cases -12-
realization of the enhanced amount of compensation.
Claimant No.1-Rohit Yadav is held entitled to 40% whereas, claimant
No.2-Kumari Pooja Yadav, is held entitled to 60% of the compensation
amount. However, any amount paid to claimant-Kumari Pooja Yadav
earlier, shall be adjusted to the amount of compensation, falling to her share.
However, learned Tribunal, as ordered aforesaid, shall work
upon the amount so received by claimant No.2, under the Haryana
Government Rules and deduct the same with proportionate interest and
disburse the residue amount to the claimants, in the ratio, as detailed
aforesaid.
Accordingly, the impugned Award dated 02.01.2017 stands
modified, to the extent, as indicated aforesaid. The residue terms of the
Award, as ordered by learned Tribunal, shall remain the same.
In view of the above observations, appeal i.e. FAOs-5323-2017
stands dismissed and FAO-5324-2017 stands allowed, whereas, XOBJC-
176-CII-2018 stands partly allowed and XOBJC-258-CII-2018 stands
allowed.
The pending civil misc. applications, if any, shall stand
disposed of.
March 01, 2025 (ARCHANA PURI)
Vgulati JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes
Whether reportable Yes/No
