AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
G.P. Mittal, J.—MAC APP.15/2010 and MAC APP.1144/2011 are two Cross Appeals arising out of the judgment dated 03.12.2009 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) in respect of the death of Devashish Asthana, who died in a motor accident which occurred on 01.01.2004. A Claim Petition was initially filed by the parents of the deceased concealing that the deceased was married to Respondent No. 8 Smt. Ritu Asthana. Smt. Ritu Asthana was later on impleaded as Respondent No. 8. The Claims Tribunal by the impugned judgment accepted the deceased''s salary to be Rs. 12,000/- per month on the basis of the Salary Certificate Ex. PW-1/12, added 50% towards future prospects, deducted one-half towards personal and living expenses; as according to the Claims Tribunal, the deceased was residing separately from his mother and perhaps there were strained relations between the deceased and the mother.
The Claims Tribunal while awarding a compensation of Rs. 19,79,000/- held that 70% of the compensation shall be payable to Respondent No. 8 (in MAC APP.15/2010) and 30% to the mother i.e. the First Respondent.
The parties shall be referred to by their nomenclature as mentioned in MAC APP.15/2010.
MAC APP.15/2010 has been filed by the New India Assurance Company Limited for reduction of compensation, whereas MAC APP.1144/2010 has been filed by the Respondent No. 8, the deceased''s widow for enhancement of compensation.
The only ground set up by the Appellant is that deduction towards conveyance allowance, LTA and medical, etc. ought to have been taken from the salary of the deceased and thus, the loss of dependency should have been granted after deducting income tax on the net income of Rs. 9,800/-.
On the other hand, it is urged on behalf of Respondent No. 8 that the deceased was just at the threshold of his career, had obtained diploma in Software from NIIT, and as the normal life expectancy was 75 years his monthly income would have increased manifold by the time he would have died. Thus, it is urged that a compensation of Rs. 35 lacs must be awarded to Respondent No. 8.
No Appeal has been filed by Sangeeta Asthana, the deceased''s mother.
It is established on record that the deceased left behind a widow, a mother and a younger son aged 20 years. Manish Asthana, the deceased''s younger brother was not yet settled in his life and would have taken a couple of years to settle. Though, there was no reliable evidence that the deceased had strained relations with his mother (the First Respondent), yet even if the relations were strained, the parties could have patched up their differences and thus there was no ground to make deduction of one-half towards his personal and living expenses instead of one-third when the number of dependents are 2-3.
In fact, this Court by order dated 18.01.2010 in MAC APP.15/2010 has increased the compensation from Rs. 19,79,000/- to Rs. 21,16,800/- at the interim stage.
As per Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, as a thumb rule 50% addition in future prospects is made when the deceased is aged upto 40 years. The Claims Tribunal also followed the same principle regarding the addition.
I do not find any reason to deviate from the principle of granting 50% increase in the deceased''s income considering that he was in permanent employment in Times Internet Limited.
At the same time it may be noticed that there was a payment of Rs. 15,400/- per annum made towards the conveyance allowance which is in the nature of payment incidental to employment. The same should not have been included in the deceased''s income for the purpose of computation of loss of dependency. The other allowances i.e. medical allowance, LTA, etc. were for the benefit of the family and there is no reason to ignore the same for computation of Loss of Dependency.
As per Sarla Verma (supra) it is also well settled that amount payable towards the income tax has to be deducted from the actual income to arrive at the income for computation of Loss of Dependency.
The loss of dependency would thus come to Rs. 20,44,800/- (1,44,000/- - 15,400/- (conveyance) = 1,28,600/- - 15,000/- (income tax) = 1,13,600/- + 50% x 2/3 x 18).
On adding notional sum of Rs. 60,000/- ( Rs. 30,000/- towards Loss of Love & Affection, Rs. 10,000/- each towards Loss to Estate, Loss of Consortium and Funeral Expenses) as granted by the Claims Tribunal, the overall compensation comes to Rs. 21,04,800/-.
By an interim order dated 18.01.2010 this Court had held that compensation payable would come to Rs. 21,16,800/-. Since there is a difference of just Rs. 12,000/- I would hold held that a compensation of Rs. 21,16,800/- is a just and reasonable compensation.
The compensation is thus enhanced from Rs. 19,79,000/- to Rs. 21,16,800/- which shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the Petition till the date of payment.
In view of the observations made above, 70% of the compensation shall be payable to Respondent No. 8. 25% to Respondent No. 1 and 5% to Respondent No. 2.
MAC APP.15/2010 filed by the Insurance Company and MAC APP.1144/2011 filed by Ritu Asthana are disposed of in above terms. Pending applications also stand disposed of.