MAC.APP./1061/2011 of BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs MEENAKSHI & ORS

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ MAC.APP. 1061/2011

Date of decision: 30[th] May, 2012

BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD.....

Appellant Through: Ms. Neerja Sachdeva, Advocate

versus

MEENAKSHI & ORS ..... Respondent Through: Mr. S.N. Parashar, Advocate

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL

J U M N T

G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)

1.The Appeal is for reduction of compensation of `29,31,196/- awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) for the death of Hukum Chand who died in motor accident which occurred on 05.07.2008. awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) for the death of Hukum Chand who died in motor accident which occurred on 05.07.2008.

2.The finding on negligence reached by the Claims Tribunal is not disputed in the Appeal. My task is only to go into the quantum of compensation. not disputed in the Appeal. My task is only to go into the quantum of compensation.

3.During inquiry before the Claims Tribunal, deceased’s salary was established to be `21,357/- by Salary Certificate Ex.PW-2/A. It was also established that the deceased was aged 50 was established to be `21,357/- by Salary Certificate Ex.PW-2/A. It was also established that the deceased was aged 50

years and eight months on the date of the accident. The Claims Tribunal made an addition of 30% towards the future prospects and applied the multiplier of ‘13’ considering that the deceased was aged 50 years.

4.The following contentions are raised on behalf of the Appellant Insurance Company:- Insurance Company:-

(i)Since the deceased was more than 50 years, the appropriate multiplier was ‘11’.appropriate multiplier was ‘11’.

(ii)No addition was permissible on account of future prospects beyond the age of 50 years as per the ratio in Sarla Verma (Smt.) & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121. prospects beyond the age of 50 years as per the ratio in Sarla Verma (Smt.) & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121.

prospects beyond the age of 50 years as per the ratio in

(iii)The compensation of `50,000/- awarded towards the loss of love and affection is on the higher side. of love and affection is on the higher side.

(iv)No deduction towards the income tax was made by the Claims Tribunal. Claims Tribunal.

It is well settled that the actual incidence towards income tax has to be deducted while awarding the loss of dependency. (Sarla Verma (supra). has to be deducted while awarding the loss of dependency. (Sarla Verma (supra).

6.Sarla Verma (supra) discussed the previous report of the Supreme Court in Sarla Dixit v. Balwant Yadav, (1996) 3 SCC 179; General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Supreme Court in Sarla Dixit v. Balwant Yadav, (1996) 3 SCC 179; General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport

Corporation, Trivandrum v. Susamma Thomas (Mrs.) and Ors. (1994) 2 SCC 176; U.P. SRTC v. Trilok Chandara, (1996) 4 SCC 362; and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Charlie, (2005) 10 SCC 720, and laid down the multiplier applicable at various age groups. It also laid down the practice to be followed for grant of future prospects. The same can be extracted in tabulated form hereunder:-

“I.MULTIPLIER

II. FUTURE PROSPECTS

(i) Permanent job : Actual salary – tax + 50% Below 40 years of age towards future prospects. Below 40 years of age towards future prospects.

(ii) Permanent job : Actual salary – tax + 30% Between 40-50 years towards future prospects. Between 40-50 years towards future prospects.

(iii) More than 50 years with:

Actual salary only.

permanent job.

No addition for future prospects.

(iv) Deceased employed at fixed: Only actual income to be Salary (without provision for taken. No addition. Annual increments)”Salary (without provision for taken. No addition. Annual increments)”

It may be noticed that the multiplier has been given from the ages of 15-20, 21-25, 26-30 and so on. Thus, there is technical flaw as to the multiplier between the ages of 20-21, 25-26, 30-31 and so on. To apply the judgment purposefully, the multiplier has to be taken as per the age which is nearer to the birth on the date of the accident. ages of 15-20, 21-25, 26-30 and so on. Thus, there is technical flaw as to the multiplier between the ages of 20-21, 25-26, 30-31 and so on. To apply the judgment purposefully, the multiplier has to be taken as per the age which is nearer to the birth on the date of the accident.

8.In this case, the age was 50 years and eight months i.e. which was nearer to 51 years. Thus, the appropriate multiplier would be ‘11’ instead of ‘13’.was nearer to 51 years. Thus, the appropriate multiplier would be ‘11’ instead of ‘13’.

9.It is not disputed that the deceased was in permanent employment with Deen Bandhu Chhotu Ram University of Science & Technology, Murthal (Sonepat). As per Sarla Verma (supra) the legal representatives were entitled to the addition of 50% towards the future prospects when the age was below 40 years and 30% when the age was between 40-50 years. Since the deceased had crossed the limit of 50 years by few months and considering the peculiar circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to grant benefit towards future prospects to the extent of 20% only. employment with Deen Bandhu Chhotu Ram University of Science & Technology, Murthal (Sonepat). As per Sarla Verma (supra) the legal representatives were entitled to the addition of 50% towards the future prospects when the age was below 40 years and 30% when the age was between 40-50 years. Since the deceased had crossed the limit of 50 years by few months and considering the peculiar circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to grant benefit towards future prospects to the extent of 20% only.

10.The liability towards income tax on an annual income of `2,56,284/- (21,357/- x 12) comes to `10,500/-. `2,56,284/- (21,357/- x 12) comes to `10,500/-.

11.Thus, the loss of dependency comes to `21,62,899/- (21,357/- x ––12 10,500/- (tax) + 20% x 2/3 x 11).

12.The Claims Tribunal awarded sum of `50,000/- towards loss of love and affection. Loss of love and affection can never be measured in terms of money. Thus, uniformity has to be adopted by the Courts while granting non-pecuniary damages. The Supreme Court in Sunil Sharma v. Bachitar Singh (2011) 11 SCC 425 and in Baby Radhika Gupta v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited (2009) 17 SCC 627 granted only ` 25,000/- (in total to all the claimants) under the head of loss of love and affection. Thus, I would reduce the compensation under this head from `50,000/- to ` 25,000/- only. of love and affection. Loss of love and affection can never be measured in terms of money. Thus, uniformity has to be adopted by the Courts while granting non-pecuniary damages. The Supreme Court in Sunil Sharma v. Bachitar Singh (2011) 11 SCC 425 and in Baby Radhika Gupta v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited (2009) 17 SCC 627 granted only ` 25,000/- (in total to all the claimants) under the head of loss of love and affection. Thus, I would reduce the compensation under this head from `50,000/- to ` 25,000/- only.13.Further, on adding notional sum of `10,000/- each towards loss to estate and funeral expenses, the overall compensation comes to `22,07,899/- (21,62,899/- + 45,000/-). loss to estate and funeral expenses, the overall compensation comes to `22,07,899/- (21,62,899/- + 45,000/-).

14.The overall compensation stands reduced from `29,31,196/- to `22,07,899/- (including the interim compensation of `50,000/-), which shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the Petition till its deposit. `22,07,899/- (including the interim compensation of `50,000/-), which shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the Petition till its deposit.

15.The compensation awarded shall be equally apportioned amongst the Respondents and shall be disbursed/held in fixed deposit in terms of the order passed by the Claims Tribunal. amongst the Respondents and shall be disbursed/held in fixed deposit in terms of the order passed by the Claims Tribunal.

16.The excess amount of `7,23,297/- along with interest and the interest accrued, if any, during the pendency of the Appeal shall be refunded to the Appellant Insurance Company. interest accrued, if any, during the pendency of the Appeal shall be refunded to the Appellant Insurance Company.

17.The statutory amount of `25,000/- be refunded to the Appellant Insurance Company. Insurance Company.

18.The Appeal is allowed in above terms.

MAY 30, 2012 vk

(G.P. MITTAL) JUDGE