Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 20th December, 2024
CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE CO.
LTD .....Appellant
Through: Ms. Suman Bagga, Advocate.
JUDGMENT
1. SMT.
2. SAPNA D/o Late Sh. Baljeet Singh ….Respondent No.2
3. YOGITA D/o Late Sh. Baljeet Singh …Respondent No. 3
4. RAMAN S/o Late Sh. Baljeet Singh ….Respondent No.4
5. MEENU SHEKHAWAT D/o Late Sh. Baljeet Singh....Respondent No.5
6. PUSHPA DEVI Mother of Deceased Sh. Baljeet Singh..Respondent No.6
7. PRABHU SINGH Father of the Deceased Sh. Baljeet Singh....Respondent No. 7
8. ASHIPH KHAN S/o Shri Salim Khan...Respondent No. 8
9. FAREED KHAN S/o Shri Rahim Khan...Respondent No.9 Through: Mr. S.N. Parashar, Advocate for R[1] to R[7]. CORAM: HON'BLE MS.
JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA JUDGMENT (oral)
1. The Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (‘M.V. Act’ hereinafter) has been filed on behalf of the Appellant/Insurance Company against the Award dated 02.08.2022 vide which the compensation in the sum of Rs.65,55,000/- along with the interest @ 6% p.a. has been granted, on account of demise of Mr. Baljeet Singh, aged about 48 years, in a road accident on 15.06.2021.
2. The Insurance Company has challenged the Award on the following grounds:
(i) that the deceased was survived by wife, two unmarried daughters and one married daughter and one son aside from his parents, who were not dependent upon the deceased and therefore, the deduction should have been 1/4th instead of 1/5th; and
(ii) that the income of the deceased has been taken as
Rs.4,90,000/- on account of the Income-Tax Returns of the year 2018-2019 even though the two subsequent Income-Tax Returns were in the sum of Rs.4.45 Lakhs.
3. Learned counsel on behalf of the Claimants, has submitted that the parents were aged and were naturally dependent upon the deceased. Furthermore, the learned Tribunal has rightly explained that because the subsequent ITRs were of the period of COVID-19 Pandemic, the Income-Tax Return of the year 2018-2019 was taken. It is submitted that the cogent reasons have been given for grant of compensation and the Award does not merit any interference.
4. Submissions heard and the record perused.
5. Briefly stated, on 15.06.2021 at around 4:30 p.m, Mr. Baljeet Singh was travelling from PVC Market to his village Tikri Kalan on his Motorcycle bearing No. DL 4SDF 8623, when he was hit by the offending vehicle bearing Canter No. DL 1MA 4943, which was driven by the Respondent No. 8, Mr. Asiph Khan, in a rash and negligent manner. Resultantly, Mr. Baljeet suffered grievous injuries and was declared dead.
6. An FIR No. 579/2021 under Section 279/337/304A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was registered at Police Station Mundka.
7. Detailed Accident Report was filed by the Investigating Officer and a Claim Petition under Section 166 and 140 of the M.V. Act, was also filed by wife, children and parents of the deceased, i.e. Respondent Nos. 1 to 7. Deductions on account of Dependancy:-
8. The first ground of challenge is that from the Memo of Parties itself, it is evident that the mother and father were living separately and independently in a Flat while deceased along with his family was resided in a separate flat. There is no evidence whatsoever to explain the dependency of the father or the mother on the deceased. Moreover, not an iota of evidence has been led to explain how the father was dependent or that he was not having any independent source of income.
9. Learned counsel on behalf of the Insurance Company, has rightly contended that in the absence of any evidence, the financial dependency of the married daughter was not established. Likewise, the father was residing separately in an independent Flat and there is no evidence that the father was financially dependant on the Deceased. Therefore, the father and the married sister could not be taken as the dependents.
10. Therefore, the Loss of Dependency should have been calculated by deducting 1/4th from the income to calculate the Loss of Dependency instead of 1/5th.
11. Re-calculation is accordingly done. Assessment of Annual Income of the Deceased:-
12. The second ground of challenge is that the Income-Tax Returns of 2018-2019 has been taken instead for the two subsequent years. However, the learned Tribunal has given cogent explanation that because of the COVID Pandemic from 2020, the income of the deceased from his business may not have been the same as he was having in the previous years. The Income-Tax Return for the year 2018-2019 showing the income of the deceased as Rs.4,90,000/- (Rs. 4,78,000 after deducting tax of Rs. 12,000) has been rightly taken and does not merit any interference. Relief:-
13. The compensation is accordingly re-calculated, as under:- S.No. Heads Amount awarded by the Tribunal Amount awarded by this Court
(i) Loss of Financial
(ii) Loss of Estate Rs.16,500/- Rs.16,500/-
(iii) Loss of Consortium Rs.3,08,000/- Rs.3,08,000/-
(iv) Funeral Charges Rs.16,500/- Rs.16,500/-
TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs.65,55,000/- @ 6% p.a. Rs. 61,66,625 @ 6% p.a.
14. The excess compensation amount, if any, be returned to the Insurance Company along with the corresponding interest. The balance amount be released to the Claimants, in terms of the Award dated 02.08.2022.
15. The statutory amount be returned, as per law.
16. The Appeal is disposed of accordingly along with the pending Application.
JUDGE DECEMBER 20, 2024