Full Text
Date of Decision: 4th September, 2017
BHARTI AXA GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Navneet Kumar, Adv.
Through: Mr. S.N. Parashar, Adv. for R-1 & 2.
JUDGMENT
1. Vikas Arora, then 27 years old, a bachelor, died in motor vehicular accident that occurred on 08.06.2013 at about 10.15 a.m. due to negligent driving of motorcycle bearing registration no. DL 4SCE 0823 admittedly insured against third party risk with the appellant insurance company (insurer). His parents, first and second respondents (collectively, the claimants), instituted accident claim case (MACP 205/2013) on 08.07.2013. The tribunal, by its judgment dated 02.02.2016, awarded compensation in the sum of Rs. 2017:DHC:5086 71,10,000/- and directed the insurer to pay with interest @ ten per cent (10%) per annum.
2. The insurer is in appeal questioning the calculation of loss of dependency worked out by the tribunal in the sum of Rs. 68,85,000/arguing that it was erroneously based on the multiplier of 17, keeping in view the age of the deceased and that the element of future prospects of increase was wrongly included, and there being no deduction, wrongly so, on account of income tax liability.
3. On the question of choice of multiplier in the case of death of a bachelor, this Court in case titled Reliance General Insurance Company Limited vs. Gomti & Ors., MAC APP.467/2016, decided on 24th August, 2017, has observed as under:-
4. The matric certificate of the second respondent (mother) was proved (Ex.PW-2/4) during the inquiry indicating her date of birth as 05.06.1964. In this view, she was 49 years old at the relevant point of time and, therefore, the multiplier of 13 should have been applied.
5. The evidence adduced before the tribunal clearly brought out that the deceased was a qualified Chartered Accountant, he having taken up a job with Singhi Chugh & Kumar Firm, a private firm of chartered accountants. Sachin Chugh (PW-1), a partner of the said firm was examined to prove the letter of appointment (Ex.PW-1/A) and the salary slips for the period December, 2012 to May, 2013 (Ex.PW-1/B). Having regard to the nature of educational qualification and the terms of engagement, the prospects of future increase in income cannot be grudged.
6. However, while calculating the loss of dependency, the income tax liability should have been kept out. The income at the time of death being Rs.45,000/-, the annual gross income comes to Rs. 5,40,000. Since the death had occurred during the financial year 2013- 2014, having regard to the rates of taxation applicable, the income upto Rs. 2,00,000/- being exempt, the total income tax liability is calculated as Rs. 36,800/-. Thus, the net income to Rs.(5,40,000- 36,800) Rs. 5,03,200/-, adding the element of future prospects of increase, applying the multiplier of 13 and after deduction of 50% towards personal & living expenses, the loss of dependency is computed, as (5,03,200 x 150 ÷ 100 ÷ 2 x 13) Rs. 49,06,200/-, rounded off to Rs. 49,07,000/-.
7. It is pointed out by the claimants, that the non-pecuniary heads of damages awarded by the tribunal are not in sync with the dispensation in similarly placed cases, referring in this context to MAC.APP.No.160/2015 Shriram General Insurance Co Ltd v. Usha decided by this court on 05.05.2016. The awards under the heads of loss of love & affection, loss to estate and funeral expenses are revised to Rs. 1,50,000/-, 1,50,000/- and Rs. 50,000/- respectively.
8. Thus, the total compensation comes to (49,07,000 + 1,50,000 + 1,50,000 + 50,000) Rs. 52,57,000/- (Rupees Fifty Two Lakhs Fifty Seven Thousand only). The award is modified accordingly.
9. The tribunal has not given any reasons why it opted to apply the interest @ ten per cent (10% ) which is higher than the one ordinarily invoked. Following the consistent view taken by this Court [see judgment dated 22.02.2016 in MAC.APP. 165/2011 Oriental Insurance Co Ltd v. Sangeeta Devi & Ors.], the rate of interest is reduced to nine per cent (9%) per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization.
10. The coercive action against the appellant was stayed by order dated 22.08.2016. The appellant is directed to satisfy the award, modified as above, by requisite deposit with the tribunal within thirty days whereupon the same shall be released to the claimants.
11. The statutory amount shall be refunded.
12. Dasti. R.K.GAUBA, J. SEPTEMBER 04, 2017 nk