AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Vijender Singh Malik, J.—The above mentioned two appeals are directed against the award dated 28.02.2010 passed by learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ambala (for short, "the Tribunal"). FAO No. 3647 of 2011 has been brought by the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, the insurer and FAO No. 5685 of 2011 has been brought by the claimants. While the insurer seeks reduction in compensation on three grounds, namely, non-deduction of income tax from the income, non-deduction of the financial assistance received by claimant No. 1 on the death of Surjit Singh and multiplier having been selected on the basis of age of the deceased, the claimants seek enhancement of the same on the ground of wrong deduction while assessing dependency. The claim petition brought u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [for short "the Act"] has been allowed by learned Tribunal vide the impugned award in a sum of Rs. 23,15,000/-. Surjit Singh, who met with fatal accident on 8.1.2010 has been working as a Naib Tehsildar and was posted at Kaithal. He was 53 years of age and he was getting Rs. 35,000/- per month as salary. The claimants are widowed mother and unmarried sister of the deceased. A sum of Rs. 30,00,000/- is claimed as compensation for the death of Surjit Singh in the aforesaid accident.
The claim petition has been resisted by the respondents. They have denied the aforesaid averments of the claimants and have denied the claimants to deserve any amount as compensation.
Taking the income of the deceased at Rs. 35,000/- per month, learned Tribunal deducted half share therefrom in consideration of the expenses that had to be incurred by the deceased on himself. Taking the monthly dependency of the claimants at Rs. 17,500/-, he took the annual dependency at Rs. 2,10,000/-. Multiplier he took is of 11 as per the decision of Hon''ble Supreme Court of India in Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, and, thus, assessed a sum of Rs. 23,10,000/- as the amount lost by the claimants in the death of Surjit Singh. A sum of Rs. 4,500/- has been added thereto in the name of loss of estate and towards funeral expenses and, therefore, a sum of Rs. 23,14,500/-, rounded off to Rs. 23,15,000/- has been assessed as compensation.
Learned counsel for the appellant-insurer has contended that learned Tribunal while assessing the income of the deceased did not deduct therefrom the income tax to which the deceased was liable on this income. According to him, a sum of Rs. 12,00,000/- has been awarded to the claimants under Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2006 [for short, "the Rules"] and the said amount was liable to be deducted from the compensation assessed in this case. He has lastly submitted that learned Tribunal has taken the multiplier on the age of the deceased. According to him, the deceased was unmarried and the multiplier should have been taken on the age of his mother, Mahinder Kaur which was 63 years.
Learned counsel for the claimants has submitted, on the other hand, that the deceased was 54 years of age, unmarried and had unmarried sister of the age of 45 years. According to him, the death occurred on 8.1.2010 and on that day, the income tax liability of the deceased could not exceed Rs. 12,000/- per annum for the relevant year.
It was a case where the total income of the deceased had been Rs. 4,20,000/- per annum out of which, a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- was exempted from tax and thereafter, another sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- could be saved to further seek exemption from payment of income tax and thereafter, the liability would be 10% for the tax. Thus, the tax liability could not be more than Rs. 12,000/-. If the amount of Rs. 12,000/- is deducted from Rs. 4,20,000/-, the amount comes to Rs. 4,08,000/- and as the claimants are two, one widowed mother and the other unmarried sister, the dependency of the two could not be more than half of this amount. The amount of annual dependency of the claimants, therefore, comes to Rs. 2,04,000/-.
Now, the question arises as to whether the amount received by way of financial assistance under the Rules can be deducted from the compensation to be assessed in this case. The answer is provided by a Division Bench of this court in Reliance General Insurance Company Limited and Others Vs. Purnima and Others etc. etc., where it is clearly laid down that the financial assistance is something different from the amount payable under the Act and the said amount cannot be deducted from the compensation payable under the Act.
The deceased has though, been unmarried, his unmarried sister has been dependent upon him who was younger to him in age. If the mean of the age of the two claimants is taken, then the same comes to 54 years and at the age of 54 years, the multiplier suggested in Sarla Verma''s case [supra] is of 11, which is adopted by learned Tribunal in this case. Multiplying Rs. 2,04,000/-, the annual dependency of the claimants with 11, I find the claimants to have lost a sum of Rs. 22,44,000/- in the death of Surjit Singh. Adding to it a sum of Rs. 15,000/- as compensation under the conventional heads, I find a sum of Rs. 22,59,000/- as compensation payable to the claimants.
No meaningful submission could be made by learned counsel for the claimants to show that the amount awarded by the Tribunal has been on a lower side and that it deserves to be enhanced. On the other hand, the amount found payable is lesser than the amount awarded by the Tribunal. Consequently, FAO No. 3647 of 2011 is partly allowed reducing the compensation from Rs. 23,15,000/- to Rs. 22,59,000/- which shall be payable to the claimants with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realization thereof and subject to other terms as allowed by the Tribunal. FAO No. 5685 of 2011, brought by the claimants, is however, found to have no merit and is dismissed.