Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 185 (DEL)

National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. R. Suneeta

2017-01-18

SUNIL GAUR

body2017
JUDGMENT : 1. Impugned Award of 5th July, 2008 grants compensation of Rs.27,95,966/- with interest to respondents-claimants, i.e. legal heirs of Shri Rambhatla Laxman Rao, aged 32 years, who had died in a road accident on 18th June, 2005. 2. Appellant-insurer as well as respondents-claimants are dissatisfied with the impugned Award, which has given rise to the instant appeal and the cross-objections filed by respondents-claimants. The factual background of this case already stands noted in the impugned Award and so, needs no reproduction. Suffice to note that deceased was working as Assistant Manager with M/s T.V. Today Network on contractual basis and was earning Rs.3,17,996/- p.a. which included Leave Travel Allowance and Special Allowance of Rs.3,060/-. Loss of dependency has been calculated by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal as Rs.27,55,966/- while taking loss of income to be Rs.3,17,996/- p.a. and by applying the multiplier of 13, loss of dependency has been worked out. Under non-pecuniary heads, a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate; Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses; Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of love and affection has been awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. 3. Challenge to the impugned Award by learned counsel for appellant-insurer is on the ground that while calculating the income of deceased, Leave Travel Allowance and Special Allowance ought to have to be excluded, as the employment was of contractual nature and because the deceased had died during the period of probation. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents-claimants seek enhancement of compensation on the ground that in the light of Supreme Court’s decision in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 , multiplier of 16 ought to have been applied whereas in the impugned Award, multiplier of 13 has been adopted. It is also submitted by learned counsel for respondents-claimants that the compensation granted under the non-pecuniary heads needs to be suitably enhanced in the light of Supreme Court’s decision in Rajesh & Ors vs. Rajbir Singh & Ors : (2013) 9 SCC 54 . Nothing else is urged by either side. 4. Upon hearing and on perusal of impugned award, evidence on record and the decisions cited, I find that though the employment of deceased was of contractual nature but it is apparent from the Appointment Letter (Ex. Nothing else is urged by either side. 4. Upon hearing and on perusal of impugned award, evidence on record and the decisions cited, I find that though the employment of deceased was of contractual nature but it is apparent from the Appointment Letter (Ex. PW-1/4) that at the end of every three years, the contractual employment was to be renewed by mutual consent for such period as parties agree. In such a situation, it cannot be said that the employment of deceased was of purely temporary nature. Moreover, Appointment Letter (Ex. PW-1/4) reveals that Leave Travel Allowance as well as Special Allowance was paid to the deceased irrespective of his contractual nature of employment and so, there is no justification to exclude these allowances while computing the income of the deceased. The learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has rightly done so and the impugned award cannot be faulted with on this ground. 5. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for appellant-insurer pointed out that as per Tax Deduction at Source Certificate (EX. PW-3/D) a sum of Rs.1,431/- was deducted towards income tax. On the aspect of Tax Deduction at Source, Supreme Court in Vimal Kanwar v. Kishore Dan (2013) 7 SCC 476 has reiterated that where the annual income is in taxable range, the words “actual salary” should be read as “actual salary less tax”. In the instant case, both the sides agree that annual deduction of tax from the income of deceased would be Rs.6370/-. 6. As regards enhancement of compensation is concerned, I find that in view of Supreme Court’s decision in Sarla Verma (Supra), multiplier of 16 is to be applied, as the deceased was aged 32 years at the time of accident. So, upon adopting multiplier of 16, Loss of Dependency is assessed at Rs.33,24,050/- after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses and after tax deductions. 7. Under the non-pecuniary heads, the compensation awarded appears to be on the lower side. In Rajesh (Supra), deceased was aged 33 years and Supreme Court has awarded compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for Loss of Consortium and Rs.25,000/- towards Funeral Expenses and a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards Loss of Love and Affection. 7. Under the non-pecuniary heads, the compensation awarded appears to be on the lower side. In Rajesh (Supra), deceased was aged 33 years and Supreme Court has awarded compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for Loss of Consortium and Rs.25,000/- towards Funeral Expenses and a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards Loss of Love and Affection. In the instant case, the compensation granted under the non-pecuniary heads is accordingly enhanced from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.1,00,000/- for Loss of Consortium; from Rs.15,000/- to Rs.1,00,000/- towards Loss of Love and Affection and Funeral expenses are enhanced from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.25,000/-. Since in Rajesh (Supra) no compensation is granted for Loss of Estate, therefore, grant of Rs.15,000/- under this head to respondents-claimants is declined. 8. Thus, the enhanced compensation payable to respondents-claimants is as under:- Loss of dependency Rs.3,11,626 x 16 x 12 = Rs.33,24,050/- (rounded off to Rs.33,24,100/-) Loss of consortium Rs.1,00,000/- Loss of love and affection Rs.1,00,000/- Funeral expenses Rs.25,000/- Total Rs.35,34,050/- (rounded off to Rs.35,34,100/-) 9. In terms of order of 25th November, 2008, 75% of the compensation awarded by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal if released to respondents-claimants be adjusted and the balance of it along with the enhanced compensation alongwith interest @9% p.a. be released to respondents-claimants in the same manner and ratio as provided in the impugned Award. It is made clear that if the enhanced amount is not deposited by appellant-insurer with the Registrar General of this Court within four weeks, then it will carry interest @9% p.a. till realisation. 10. The statutory deposit, if any, be refunded to the appellant-insurer after enhanced amount is deposited. 11. With aforesaid modification, this appeal and cross-objections are disposed of.