Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 29 November, 2024
U P STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION .....Appellant
Through: Ms. Garima Prasad, Senior Advocate
Through: Mr. Pankaj Gupta, Advocate
JUDGMENT
1. The present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been filed against the Judgment and Award dated 17.11.2017 vide which compensation in the sum of Rs.33,95,000/- along with interest @ 9% p.a. has been granted to the Respondents/legal heirs of deceased, Shri Mangat Ram on account of injuries suffered by him in a road accident on 01.08.2015/02.08.2015.
2. The Appellant has challenged the quantum of compensation awarded on the following grounds:-
(i) that the deceased was survived by wife and three married children as legal heirs and since all the three children were married and settled, the deduction should have been made 1/2 and not of 1/4;
(ii) that the age of the deceased was 57 years and so, multiplier of
(iii) that the deceased was due to retire after 2 years 11 months and therefore, while calculating his income, regular salary of the deceased for the said period has to be taken and thereafter, his pension should have been adjusted for calculating Loss of Income; and
(iv) that in the Salary Certificate it is indicated that he was getting
Transport Allowance of Rs.1,600/- p.m. and Dearness Allowance on Transport Allowance of Rs.1808/- p.m. which were liable to be deducted from his monthly income.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Claimant submits that there is no challenge to the age of the deceased. However, it is argued that even though the children of the deceased were married, the dependency has been rightly assessed at 1/4 of the income.
4. Insofar as deductions towards allowances are concerned, it is argued that perks are not be deducted while calculating the salary.
5. Similarly, the compensation has been computed correctly, as pre and post retirement income is not required to be considered.
6. It is submitted that there is no error in the computation of compensation and the Appeal is without merit and is liable to be dismissed.
7. At this stage, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Claimants has pointed out that out of the awarded amount, only a sum of Rs.15,00,000/has been deposited by the Insurance Company and a direction be issued to deposit the entire awarded amount.
8. Submissions heard.
9. Briefly stated, on 01.08.2015/02.08.2015, deceased Shri Mangat Ram along with his wife, Smt. Raj Rani was travelling as passengers in the Bus bearing No.UP-11T-5832 to Haridwar for devotional purpose. The Respondent No.1/Dinesh Kumar (driver) while driving the bus at a high speed was overtaking one vehicle after the other. While crossing the Container No.HR-7H-2076, it hit its left side with forceful impact and drove the bus further. Consequently, Shri Mangat Ram and other passengers travelling in the bus, suffered injuries. Shri Mangat Ram was immediately taken to Dr. Baba Saheb Ambedkar Hospital, Rohini, Delhi from where he was referred to Safdarjung Hospital, Delhi and thereafter to Maharaja Agrasen Hospital, Delhi. He died during the treatment.
10. An FIR No.567/2015 under Section 279/337/338/304-A IPC was registered. On completion of investigation, Chargesheet was filed in the Court.
11. The Claim Petition under Section 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 was filed by the legal heirs of the deceased Shri Mangat Ram. The Ld. Tribunal Vide Award dated 17.11.2017, granted compensation in the sum of Rs.33,95,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum.
12. The Appellant aggrieved by the quantum of compensation had preferred the present Appeal. Deduction towards personal expenses:-
13. The first ground of challenge is that the deceased was survived by his wife and three married children as legal heirs. Since the three children were married and settled, the cannot be considered as dependents and therefore, the deduction should have been 1/2 and not 1/4.
14. The Apex Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Birender, AIR 2020 SC 434 while examining the issue that whether the major, married and gainfully employed sons of the deceased would be entitled to “loss of dependency”, opined that the sons were earning a meagre sum of 1 lacs-1.[5] lacs per annum and were financially dependent upon the income of their mother, who contributed her entire salary towards household expenses.
15. In the judgment passed by the Madras High in Branch Manager, ICICI Lombard General Ins. Co Ltd. vs. Kaliyamoorthy, 2018 KHC 5479; (2020) 11 SCC 356, it was observed that married daughters, a father or mother or brother, can always seek monetarily help from their father/husband/son, and could be dependent upon them. Similarly, a mother can continuously render her valuable service to her daughter, even if the daughter is married and a married daughter would still continue to assist her mother, or father, in the case of need. Thus, this contribution by means of service or income, both can be taken into account to determine the quantum of compensation.
16. This judgment was relied upon by the Kerala High Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd v. Shalumol in MACA No. 1768 of 2021, wherein the Court expanded the scope of “Loss of Dependency” to include the married daughters and the parents of the deceased. It was observed that:-
between a mother and a daughter is eternal. I reminisce the quotation of Cardinal Mermillod “No matter how old she may be, sometimes a girl just needs her mom.”
51. Even if dependency is a relevant criterion to claim compensation for loss of dependency, it does not mean financial dependency is the „ark of the covenant‟. Dependency includes gratuitous service dependency, physical dependency, emotional dependency, psychological dependency, and so on and so forth, which can never be equated in terms of money”
17. Similarly, in MFA No. 102868/2014 titled as Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd v. Gangappa decided vide Order dated 04.08.2022, the Karnataka High Court examined whether the major married daughters can be treated as dependents of the deceased mother. While relying upon Birender (supra), it was opined that:-
and further observed that even if the dependency is relevant criterion to claim compensation for loss of dependency, it does not mean financial dependency is the „ark of the covenant‟. Dependency includes gratuitous service dependency, physical dependency, emotional dependency, psychological dependency so on and so forth, which can never be equated in terms of the money.
25. Having considered the principles laid down in the judgments referred to supra, this Court has taken note of recent judgment of the Apex Court in Birender, wherein it is held that even married sons are entitled for compensation not only on conventional heads but also on loss of dependency. Hence, the very contention of the appellantinsurance company cannot be accepted.”
18. While referring to all the above decisions, a Co-ordinate Bench of this court in Ram Charan vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., 2022 SCC OnLine Del 5146, held that the five children of the deceased i.e. one major son and four married daughters were dependant on their deceased mother. It was observed that:-
entitled for the compensation under the head ‘Loss of Dependency’. Based on the above findings, this court is of the view that the Appellants are entitled to receive compensation under the head of „Loss of Dependency‟.”
19. Therefore, even though the three children were married, but they have been deprived of emotional, physical and social support aside from the benefit they would have derived from the income of the deceased.
20. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, 1/4th deduction while calculating Loss of Dependency cannot be faulted. Multiplier:-
21. The second ground of challenge is that the deceased was 57 years old and multiplier of 9 instead of 11, should have been applied.
22. PW[2], Shri Bijender Singh LDC, Division No.M332(N), Delhi College of Engineering Campus, Bawana, Delhi produced the Service Book of Late Shri Mangat Ram who was serving as the Baildar in the Office. As per the Statement showing Verification of Service of Late Shri Mangat Ram Ex.PW2/7, his Date of Birth is 01.07.1958 and his Date of Appointment is 10.05.1993. The accident took place on 17.11.2015 which means that he was 57 years old at the time of the accident.
23. The learned Tribunal by taking the age of the deceased as 53 years, has applied the multiplier of 11. However, the Service Book Ex.PW2/7 establishes that the deceased was about 57 years old at the time of his death. The correct multiplier is 9 and not 11. The Loss of Dependency is thus, recalculated accordingly. Deductions from the salary:-
24. The next aspect is the deductions of perks from the salary of the deceased.
25. It has been argued by the Appellant that in the Salary Certificate it is indicated that the deceased was receiving certain Allowances like Transport Allowance and Dearness Allowance which were liable to be deducted from his monthly income.
26. As per the Salary Slip of the deceased Shri Mangat Ram, his total gross income was Rs.32,311/- per month. However, it included Washing Allowance of Rs.90/-, Cycle Allowance of Rs.90/-, Transport Allowance of Rs.1600/-, DA on Transport Allowance Rs.1808/- which adds upto Rs.3,588/-.
27. Pertinently, in the case of Ram Charan and Ors. vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Ors., 2022 SCC OnLine Del 5146, it has been held that the benefits granted to the deceased, specifically Travel and Washing Allowances, were inherently tied to the amelioration of workplace hardships experienced during employment. Consequently, these allowances cannot be considered part of the compensation that would benefit the Appellants (legal heirs of the deceased). By excluding Travel and Washing Allowances, this Court affirmed a principled method of calculating the deceased’s income by deducting those allowances that were solely for the personal benefit of the deceased, ensuring that compensation reflects genuine economic loss to the family rather than job-specific transient benefits.
28. These were the perks which were being consumed by the deceased when he went to attend his Office. Once, he is no longer working, he cannot be utilizing his Washing allowance, Cycle Allowance, Transport Allowance and DA on Transport Allowance. This amount needs to be deducted from the Gross Salary of the deceased and his Net Salary comes to Rs.28,723/- (Rs.32,311-3,588) per month. Future Prospects:-
29. The Appellant has claimed that the deceased was due to retire after --- -and his family would have got entitled to family pension which needs to be accounted while calculating the loss of Income.
30. Respondents, on the other hand, have submitted that no future prospects have been considered.
31. As discussed above, the deceased was aged 57 years at time of his death. As per the judgment of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, the deceased is entitled to 10% future prospects. However, the deceased was in regular Government Service and was getting his DA every six months and also in the pension, the family may get. Therefore, his future prospects are already taken care of. No separate Future prospects need to be granted.
32. The income of the deceased for calculating Loss of Dependency comes to Rs.21,542.25/- [28723 - 7180.75 (1/4 of 28,723)] per annum.
33. The Loss of Dependency thus, comes to Rs.23,26,563/- (21,542.25 X
34. The total compensation amount is calculated as under: Sr. No. Head of Compensation Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Compensation awarded/modified by this Court
1. Medical Expenses Rs.14,232/- Rs.14,232/-
2. Loss of Dependency Rs.33,10,747.11 Rs.23,26,563/-
3. Funeral Expenses Rs,15,000/- Rs,15,000/-
4. Loss of Estate Rs.15,000/- Rs,15,000/-
5. Loss of Consortium Rs.40,000/- Rs.40,000/- TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs.33,94,979.11 Rs.24,10,795/-
35. The total amount of compensation thus, granted to the Claimant is Rs.24,10,795/- which is rounded off to Rs.24,11,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of Claim petition till realization, as per the terms of the Award dated 17.11.2017.
36. The Appeal is accordingly disposed of along with the pending Applications(s), if any.
JUDGE NOVEMBER 29, 2024 r/va