icici Lombard General Insurance Co Ltd. Vs. Archana and ors. - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1027873
CourtDelhi High Court
Decided OnSep-12-2013
JudgeSURESH KAIT
Appellanticici Lombard General Insurance Co Ltd.
RespondentArchana and ors.
Excerpt:
$~13 * in the high court of delhi at new delhi % + judgment delivered on:12. h september, 2013 mac.app. 531/2012 icici lombard general insurance co ltd. ..... appellant through: ms. suman bagga, adv. versus archana & ors. ..... respondents through: mr. manish maini, adv. for r1 to r5. coram: hon'ble mr. justice suresh kait suresh kait, j.(oral) 1. instant appeal has been preferred against the impugned award dated 06.03.2012 passed by the ld. tribunal whereby compensation for a sum of rs.28,05,816/- has been granted by the ld. tribunal with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the notice under order 21 rule 1 is given by the insurance company.2. ld. counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has argued the instant appeal on the two grounds, firstly, the date of birth of the deceased was 15.01.1974 and he met with an accident on 27.06.2009. therefore, on the date of the accident, he was 35 years 5 months and 12 days of age. accordingly, keeping in view the age of the deceased, the ld. tribunal has wrongly applied multiplier of 16. on this issue reliance has been placed on sarla verma v. dtc and ors. 2009 (6) scc 121.3. ld. counsel for the appellant further submits that in the case of sarla verma (supra) for the age between 31 to 35, multiplier of 16 is applied and for the age between 36 to 40, multiplier of 15 is applied.4. on the other hand, ld. counsel for the respondents/claimants submits that deceased was between the age of 35 to 36 years. therefore, multiplier 15 will be applicable only if the deceased had attained the age of 36 years, but certainly not on less than 36 years.5. in view of the dictum of sarla verma (supra), i do not find any discrepancy on the application of multiplier of 16 by the ld. tribunal.6. as the issue of salary is concerned, ld. counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that ld. tribunal has not deducted rs.732/- as ta and rs.50/- as conveyance allowance. thus, the ld. counsel has argued that rs.782/- had to be deducted from the salary and thereafter the compensation should have been awarded.7. on this issue, ld. counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents / claimants submits that the gross salary has been taken into consideration, therefore, ld. tribunal has not rightly deducted rs.782/- towards ta and conveyance allowance. he has relied upon a case of shyamwati sharma and ors. v. karam singh and ors. 2010 acj 196.and vimal kanwar & ors. v. kishore dan & ors. 2013 (6) scale.8. on going through the judgments cited by the counsel for the respondents / claimants, i am of the opinion that the whole discussion in both the judgments are on the deductions towards gpf, life insurance premium, repayment of loan, share etc. and the income tax / surcharge, however, there is no discussion on the amount of ta or conveyance allowance. the aforementioned allowances are earned by the employee from the employer if he remained in service, otherwise not applicable to him. therefore, i find force in the submission of ld. counsel for the appellant. accordingly, rs.782/- is deducted from the salary and accordingly the compensation is granted as under:1. 2.3.4.5.6.7.8. income future prospect (50%) (5722) 1/4th personal expenses(4,291.5)loss of dependency (12,874.5 x 12x16) =rs.24,71,904/rounded of - rs.11,444/- per month rs.17,166/- per month rs. 12,874.5 per month loss of love and affection loss of consortium loss of estate funeral expenses total compensation rs. 1,00,000/rs.10,000/rs. 5,000/rs.50,000/ rs. 26,36,900/- - rs.24,71,900/- modified/reduced compensation comes to rs.1,68,916/- (28,05,81626,36,900).9. i note, pursuant to order dated 15.05.2012, appellant has deposited the award amount with uco bank, delhi high court branch, new delhi. the branch manager, uco bank, delhi high court branch is directed to release the compensation amount in favour of the respondents / claimants after deducting the amount mentioned above with proportionate interest thereto.10. consequently, statutory amount be released in favour of the appellant/insurance company.11. appeal stands disposed of on the above terms. cm. no. 8861/2012 with the disposal of the appeal itself, this application has become infructuous. the same is accordingly disposed of. suresh kait, j september 12 2013 jg/rs
Judgment:

$~13 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:

12. h September, 2013 MAC.APP. 531/2012 ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD. ..... Appellant Through: Ms. Suman Bagga, Adv. versus ARCHANA & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Manish Maini, Adv. for R1 to R5. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J.

(Oral) 1. Instant appeal has been preferred against the impugned award dated 06.03.2012 passed by the ld. Tribunal whereby compensation for a sum of Rs.28,05,816/- has been granted by the ld. Tribunal with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the Notice Under Order 21 Rule 1 is given by the Insurance Company.

2. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has argued the instant appeal on the two grounds, firstly, the date of birth of the deceased was 15.01.1974 and he met with an accident on 27.06.2009. Therefore, on the date of the accident, he was 35 years 5 months and 12 days of age. Accordingly, keeping in view the age of the deceased, the ld. Tribunal has wrongly applied multiplier of 16. On this issue reliance has been placed on Sarla Verma v. DTC and Ors. 2009 (6) SCC 121.

3. Ld. Counsel for the appellant further submits that in the case of Sarla Verma (Supra) for the age between 31 to 35, multiplier of 16 is applied and for the age between 36 to 40, multiplier of 15 is applied.

4. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the respondents/claimants submits that deceased was between the age of 35 to 36 years. Therefore, multiplier 15 will be applicable only if the deceased had attained the age of 36 years, but certainly not on less than 36 years.

5. In view of the dictum of Sarla Verma (Supra), I do not find any discrepancy on the application of multiplier of 16 by the ld. Tribunal.

6. As the issue of salary is concerned, ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that ld. Tribunal has not deducted Rs.732/- as TA and Rs.50/- as conveyance allowance. Thus, the ld. Counsel has argued that Rs.782/- had to be deducted from the salary and thereafter the compensation should have been awarded.

7. On this issue, ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents / claimants submits that the gross salary has been taken into consideration, therefore, ld. Tribunal has not rightly deducted Rs.782/- towards TA and conveyance allowance. He has relied upon a case of Shyamwati Sharma and Ors. v. Karam Singh and Ors. 2010 ACJ 196.and Vimal Kanwar & Ors. v. Kishore Dan & Ors. 2013 (6) SCALE.

8. On going through the judgments cited by the counsel for the respondents / claimants, I am of the opinion that the whole discussion in both the judgments are on the deductions towards GPF, Life Insurance Premium, Repayment of Loan, Share etc. and the income tax / surcharge, however, there is no discussion on the amount of TA or conveyance allowance. The aforementioned allowances are earned by the employee from the employer if he remained in service, otherwise not applicable to him. Therefore, I find force in the submission of ld. Counsel for the appellant. Accordingly, Rs.782/- is deducted from the salary and accordingly the compensation is granted as under:

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8. Income Future prospect (50%) (5722) 1/4th Personal expenses(4,291.5)Loss of dependency (12,874.5 x 12x16) =Rs.24,71,904/Rounded of - Rs.11,444/- per month Rs.17,166/- per month Rs. 12,874.5 per month Loss of Love and Affection Loss of Consortium Loss of Estate Funeral Expenses Total Compensation Rs. 1,00,000/Rs.10,000/Rs. 5,000/Rs.50,000/ Rs. 26,36,900/- - Rs.24,71,900/- Modified/reduced compensation comes to Rs.1,68,916/- (28,05,81626,36,900).

9. I note, pursuant to order dated 15.05.2012, appellant has deposited the award amount with UCO Bank, Delhi High Court Branch, New Delhi. The Branch Manager, UCO Bank, Delhi High Court Branch is directed to release the compensation amount in favour of the respondents / claimants after deducting the amount mentioned above with proportionate interest thereto.

10. Consequently, statutory amount be released in favour of the appellant/Insurance Company.

11. Appeal stands disposed of on the above terms. CM. NO. 8861/2012 With the disposal of the appeal itself, this application has become infructuous. The same is accordingly disposed of. SURESH KAIT, J SEPTEMBER 12 2013 jg/RS