Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 2079 (RAJ)

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Surta

2011-09-24

MOHAMMAD RAFIQ

body2011
Hon'ble RAFIQ, J.—This appeal has been preferred by non-claimant No.3-appellant, the New India Assurance Company Limited, being aggrieved by award dated 02.02.2007 of learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tonk, in Claim Petition No.77/2006, whereby learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.15,19,000/- as compensation in favour of claimants, along-with interest thereon at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of institution of the claim petition i.e. 30.01.2006 till the date of payment. 2. Shri Vizzy Agarwal, learned counsel for appellant, argued that learned Tribunal, while computing the compensation for the purpose of loss of dependency, has enhanced the net salary of the deceased from Rs.5,497/- to Rs.10,500/- meaning thereby it has doubled the same on the ground of future prospects and, after deduction 1/3rd amount therefrom, determined loss of annual dependency at Rs.84,000/- (7000x12) and applied the multiplier of 17 taking the age of the deceased at the relevant time to be of 32 years, and on that basis computed the compensation. Learned counsel argued that at this age the multiplier of 16 should have been applied. It was argued that the learned Tribunal erred in law in not deducting the amount of Rs.496/- towards HDA, a sum of Rs.263/- towards HR, a sum of Rs.600/- towards MA, a sum of Rs.50/- towards UFA and lastly a sum of Rs.30/- towards FTA, totaling to Rs.1439/-. This amount of Rs.1439/- ought to have been deducted from the gross salary of the deceased while arriving at the actual net salary. The net salary of the deceased that could be considered to assess the loss of dependency was Rs.4,058/- and not Rs.5,497/-, as took by learned Tribunal. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the appellant has relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited vs. S. Rajapriya – 2005 ACJ 1441 (SC) = RLW 2005(3) SC 390 and MD, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited vs. K.I. Bindu – 2006 ACJ 423 (SC). 3. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the appellant has relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited vs. S. Rajapriya – 2005 ACJ 1441 (SC) = RLW 2005(3) SC 390 and MD, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited vs. K.I. Bindu – 2006 ACJ 423 (SC). 3. Per contra, Shri B.B. Ojha, learned counsel for the claimant-respondents, argued that as per the salary certificate of the deceased, issued by the Office of Superintendent of Police, District Tonk, which is produced for perusal of the court, the total payable salary to the deceased was Rs.7,389/-, whereas learned Tribunal has, in computing his salary, reduced the deductions of Rs.300/- towards G.P.F., Rs.525/- towards GPF Loan, Rs.53/- towards PMF, Rs.150/- towards SI, Rs.2/- towards service tax and Rs.802/- towards LIC per month, totaling to Rs.1892/-. This amount of Rs.1892/- ought not to have been reduced from the gross salary of the deceased as those deductions were part of his salary and should not have been deducted. The learned Tribunal should have taken the gross salary of Rs.7,389/- as the basis for computing loss of dependency and not Rs.5,497/-. Learned counsel argued that multiplier of 17 has correctly been applied at the age of 32 years. Besides, as per ratio of judgment of the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another – (2009) 6 SCC 121 = 2009(1) CCR 276 (SC) = 2009(4) RLW 2785 (SC), deductions for self-expenses of deceased in the event of number of dependents is more than six, should be 1/5th. Since the number of dependents in the present case are eight, deduction towards self expenses of the deceased should not have been more than 1/5th. In the case of Sarla Verma, supra, the Supreme Court also held that 50% can be added to the actual salary by taking note of future prospects. Learned counsel, in support of his arguments, relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Shyamwati Sharma and Others vs. Karam Singh and Others- 2010 DNJ (SC) 716 = 2010(2) CCR 705 (SC). It is therefore prayed that the appeal be dismissed. 4. The Supreme Court in the case of Shyamwati Sharma, supra, held that while ascertaining the annual income of the deceased, any deductions shown in the salary certificate as deductions towards CPF, LIC, repayment of loans etc. It is therefore prayed that the appeal be dismissed. 4. The Supreme Court in the case of Shyamwati Sharma, supra, held that while ascertaining the annual income of the deceased, any deductions shown in the salary certificate as deductions towards CPF, LIC, repayment of loans etc. should not be excluded. In the present case, while some of deductions, which, according to the appellant, were made, may not be acceptable, but even if it is assumed that they should be accepted, the deductions of Rs.300/- towards G.P.F., Rs.525/- towards GPF Loan, and Rs.802/- towards LIC per month, thus totaling a sum of Rs.1627/- at any rate cannot be justified. If this amount is added to Rs.5,497/-, the total salary would come to Rs.7,124/- and on that basis the ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma, supra, if 50% is added to the actual salary by taking note of future prospects, the salary would come to Rs.10,686/- (7124+3562) and after deducting therefrom 1/5th towards self-expenses, the amount of loss of monthly dependency would come to Rs.7,549/- (10686-2137). Multiplier of 17 at the age of 32 of the deceased, has correctly been applied by the learned Tribunal and therefore the loss of dependency would come to Rs.15,39,996/- (7549+12+17), whereas the learned Tribunal in the present case has awarded total compensation of Rs.15,19,000/- which includes Rs.14,28,000/- under the head of loss of dependency, Rs.15,000/- under the head of consortium, Rs.70,000/- under the head of love and affection, Rs.5000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.1000/- towards transportation of dead body. 5. Since in the present case, there is no cross-objection, the compensation awarded to the claimants cannot be enhanced but on examination of the award as per the ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma, supra, it is found to be justified, so no interference is therefore made. In the result, the appeal fails and same is hereby dismissed.