United India Insurance Company ... vs Deepa
2021 Latest Caselaw 12170 Raj

(1 of 5) [CMA-609/2021]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 609/2021

United India Insurance Company Limited, Legally Constituted Authority, T.p. Claims Hub, Divisional Office, 74A, Bhati-N-Plaza, Pal Road, Jodhpur

----Appellant Versus

1. Deepa W/o Rajendra Siyag, House No. 1/57, Housingh Board, Nagaur Second Address Village Narwakala, Tehsil Khinvsar, Dis. Nagaur

2. Jiya D/o Rajendra Siyag, House No. 1/57, Housingh Board, Nagaur Second Address Village Narwakala, Tehsil Khinvsar, Dis. Nagaur

3. Khyati D/o Rajendra Siyag, House No. 1/57, Housingh Board, Nagaur Second Address Village Narwakala, Tehsil Khinvsar, Dis. Nagaur

4. Hriday S/o Rajendra Siyag, House No. 1/57, Housingh Board, Nagaur Second Address Village Narwakala, Tehsil Khinvsar, Dis. Nagaur

5. Maadi Devi W/o Choularam, House No. 1/57, Housingh Board, Nagaur Second Address Village Narwakala, Tehsil Khinvsar, Dis. Nagaur

6. Choularam S/o Rahingram, House No. 1/57, Housingh Board, Nagaur Second Address Village Narwakala, Tehsil Khinvsar, Dis. Nagaur

7. Puraram S/o Khetaram Meghwal, Village Soyla, Tehsil Bhopalgarh, Dis. Jodhpur

8. Bhenaram S/o Bheraram Nayak, Village Charkada, Tehsil Nokha, Dis. Bikaner

9. Andaram S/o Multanram Mali, Maliyo Ki Dhani, Village Kherapa, Tehsil Baori, Dis. Jodhpur

----Respondents

For Appellant(s) : Mr. J.C. Vyas.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Lal Singh Rathore.

Mr. Omprakash Phoolphager.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Order 04/08/2021

This appeal is directed against the judgment and award

dated 03.02.2021, whereby, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of

Rs.1,24,88,400/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% p.a.

from the date of application on amount other than on amount of

future prospects.

(2 of 5) [CMA-609/2021]

An application for compensation was filed by the claimants

inter-alia with the submissions that on 02.08.2018, the deceased

Rajendra alongwith others from his office were travelling in Bolero

car No. RJ-21-TA-1972, when the offending vehicle RJ-19-GB-

8380 being driven rashly and negligently struck the said car and

another vehicle RJ-19-GF-3417, which was also being driven

rashly and negligently, collided with the vehicle resulting in

grievous injuries to the occupants of the vehicle. Rajendra

suffered grievous injuries to which he scummed.

It was claimed that deceased Rajendra was serving with the

Panchayat Samiti, Nagaur as Assistant Engineer, and on account of

the said untimely death of said Rajendra, compensation to the

tune of Rs.4,14,99,400/- was claimed.

After evidence was led by the parties, the Tribunal came to

the conclusion that the accident occurred on account of rash and

negligent driving by Driver of Truck No. RJ-19-GB-8380 and RJ-

19-GF-3417 resulting in the death of Rajendra.

While assessing the quantum of compensation the Tribunal,

based on the last payslip of deceased Rajendra i.e. Rs.75,875/-

per month assessed the quantum of compensation with an annual

income at Rs.9,10,500/-, adding future prospects @ 30%,

deducting 1/4th towards personal expenses, applying multiplier of

14 towards the loss of income at Rs.1,24,28,325/- and after

adding a sum of Rs.60,000/- towards general damages, awarded

compensation to the tune of Rs.1,24,88,325/- alongwith interest

as noticed hereinbefore.

The present appeal has been filed by the appellant -

Insurance Company inter-alia challenging the quantum of

compensation.

(3 of 5) [CMA-609/2021]

Learned counsel made submissions that the Tribunal has

applied multiplier of 14, which is excessive, inasmuch as,

admittedly the date of birth of the deceased was 17.07.1972 and

as the accident occurred on 02.10.2018, he was aged 46 years

and in terms of judgment in Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport

Corporation & Anr. (2009) 6 SCC 121, the multiplier in case the

deceased is aged between 46 to 50 years is 13 only.

Further submissions have been made that though the income

of the deceased in the Income Tax Return, which was exhibited

has been shown towards salary at Rs. 6,42,636/- excessive

amount has been taken as the annual income at Rs. 9,10,500/-.

Further submissions have been made that the Tribunal while

assessing the loss of income has not deducted the income tax

from the income of the deceased, which has resulted in

determination of a higher compensation and, therefore, the

compensation deserves to be modified.

Learned counsel for the respondents made submissions that

the Tribunal has rightly assessed the amount of compensation,

inasmuch as, the last drawn salary of the deceased was Rs.

75,875/- per month and explained that the salary as indicated in

the return pertains to the period when the increase in the salary

was not given effect to and, therefore, the assessment made

based on the income at Rs. 75,875/- per month is justified.

Further submissions were made that the deduction towards

income tax, has been reflected in the computation of income,

which is at Rs. 25,894/- for the year and, therefore, the same

may be deductible. However, it was admitted that the date of birth

of the deceased was 17/07/1972 and, therefore, the multiplier of

13 may be applied. However, it was submitted that there was no

(4 of 5) [CMA-609/2021]

justification for not awarding interest on the amount of future

prospects and that amount awarded qua general damages is also

on the lower side.

During course of submissions, as the particulars of salary

and income tax of the deceased as on the date of death were not

available on record, the respondents were directed to produce

Form GA 55A from the Department, which has been duly

produced. The same is taken on record under Order XLI Rule 27

CPC. As per the said document at the time of death of Rajendra,

he was getting salary of Rs. 75,875/- per month and as such, the

assessment made by the Tribunal by taking the salary of the

deceased at Rs.75,875/- and annual salary at Rs.9,10,500/-

cannot be faulted.

So far as the calculation of amount of income tax is

concerned, the tax paid by the deceased during the assessment

year 2018-19 pertains to a period when his salary was less and as

the assessment for the purpose of compensation is being made

with a higher salary the quantum of income tax has to be made

based on the provisions of the Income Tax Act as they existed

then. Based on which, after providing for a standard deduction of

Rs. 1,50,000/- and applying the relevant tax rates alongwith

education cess of 4%, the total income tax deduction would be Rs.

67,184/- per year, which needs to be deduced from the income of

the deceased.

In view thereof, the amount towards the loss of income

would be assessed as under:-

Rs.9,10,500 - 67,184=8,43,316/- per year.

Rs.8,43,316/- + 2,52,999/- (30% Future Prospects) -

2,74,077/- (1/4th Personal Expenses) X 13 = Rs. 1,06,89,042/-.

(5 of 5) [CMA-609/2021]

The General Damages have been awarded on the lower side,

the same must be 70,000 + 10% increase (in view of the

judgment in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v.

Pranay Sethi & Ors.:(2017) 16 SCC 680) = 77,000.

As such total compensation would be Rs. 1,07,66,042/-

The non-award of interest on the amount of future prospects

by the Tribunal cannot be supported as the claimants in any case

are paid compensation for the future loss of income and the

amount of future prospects is only one of the component as such

the direction of the Tribunal in this regard is set aside exercising

powers under Order XLI Rule 33 CPC.

In view of the above discussion, the appeal filed by the

appellant - Insurance Company is partly allowed. The award dated

03.02.2021 passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that

the claimants shall be entitled to compensation to the tune of

Rs.1,07,66,042/- alongwith interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of

application on the entire amount of compensation, rest of the

directions given in the award pertaining to the bifurcation is

maintained, which be now done in same proportion qua the

amount of compensation now arrived at.

(ARUN BHANSALI),J 10-pradeep/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)