Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
MAC APP 513/2010 Page 1 of 4 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on: 19th January, 2012 + MAC.APP. 513/2010
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Sameer Nandwani, Adv.
versus
LEELA WATI & ORS ..... Respondent Through: Mr. S.N. Parashar, Adv. for R-1 to R-5. Ms. Punam Singh Adv. for Mr. Kumar Rajesh Singh, Adv. for Northern Railways. CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
J U D G M E N T G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL) 1. The Appellant Reliance General Insurance Company Limited impugns the judgment dated 02.06.2010 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (the Tribunal) whereby a compensation of `44,52,100/- was awarded on account of the death of Ram Nayak Mishra, who was working as an Air Conditioning Engineer in Northern Railways and was aged about 59 years at the time of the accident. 2. The sole contention raised on behalf of the Appellant is that the actual income of the deceased is to be taken into consideration to compute the loss of dependency. A large component in the salary was for overtime which was not regular income and therefore, could not have been taken into account.
MAC APP 513/2010 Page 2 of 4 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the Respondents/Claimants submits that the deceased was working as an Air Conditioning Engineer in the Indian Railways, the overtime allowance was regularly being paid to the deceased and the same was rightly considered by the Tribunal. 4. To know the exact nature of the allowance being paid, this Court by order dated 31.10.2011 directed examination of the competent officer of the Northern Railways to prove the deceased’s salary. Consequently, statement of Raj Kishore, Assistant Divisional Finance Manager was recorded, who proved that the salary for the month of September, 2008 was ` 54,117/- which included a component of `33,535/- towards the overtime, `1908/- towards travelling allowance and `696/- towards the transport allowance. Similarly, in the salary for the month of November, 2008, which was paid in December, 2008, a sum of `35,997/- was paid as the overtime allowance; `3016/- towards the transport allowance and `3582/- as travelling allowance. The witness stated that the travelling allowance as mentioned in the breakup of the salary pertains to the journey undertaken by him during the course of the employment. The salary chart Ex. ‘C’ to ‘G’ for the month of July to November, 2008 was filed. Another certificate Ex. ‘A’ showing the gross amount and the net amount paid to the deceased was also proved. The witness also deposed that the Railway accommodation is to be vacated by the family of the deceased
MAC APP 513/2010 Page 3 of 4 employee after the prescribed period under the Rules. 5. The basic pay of the deceased was ` 14,260/-. He would be entitled to 30% of the pay towards House Rent Allowance (HRA) also, if he would not have opted for the govt. accommodation. It is well settled that all perquisites are to be taken into consideration for the purpose of computing the loss of dependency. In Raghuvir Singh Matolya & Ors. v.Hari Singh Malviya & Ors., (2009) 15 SCC 363, it was held that House Rent Allowance (HRA) is to be included in the deceased’s income for computation of the loss of dependency. 6. In my view the following amounts are to be included in the deceased’s pay:- (i) Basic pay i.e. ` 14,260/-. (ii) Dearness allowance i.e. ` 2282/- (16% of 14,260/-). (iii) House Rent Allowance i.e. 4386/- (30% of 14,260/-). 7. Although, it appears that the deceased was almost regularly getting overtime allowance ranging between `10,000/- to ` 35,000/- per month. Since the deceased was to retire just after 10-11 months, a sum of ` 10,000/- only as overtime allowance, shall be taken for computing the loss of dependency. 8. Thus, the deceased’s monthly salary works out as ` 30,928/- (14,260/- + 2282/- + 4386/- + 10,000/-). After deducting the income tax liability; one-third towards the personal expenses
MAC APP 513/2010 Page 4 of 4 and on applying the multiplier of ‘9’, the loss of dependency works out as `20,51,460/- (30,928/- x 12 – 29,227/- (income tax) – 1/3 x 9). 9. After adding the notional sum of `75,000/- under conventional heads as granted by the Tribunal, the overall compensation comes to ` 21,26,460/-. The compensation is thus reduced from `44,52,100/- to ` 21,26,460/-. 10. The excess amount of ` 23,25,640/- along with the up-to-date interest earned, if any, during the pendency of the Appeal, shall be refunded to the Appellant Insurance Company through its counsel. The statutory amount of `25,000/- shall also be returned. 11. By the order of this Court dated 06.08.2010, 60% of the awarded amount was ordered to be released in favour of the Claimants, which is in excess of ` 21,26,460/- which has been awarded by this Court. Respondent No.1 Leelawati, widow of the deceased and Respondent No.5 Smt. Rampati mother of the deceased, who are the main beneficiaries, are directed to refund the excess amount to the Appellant Insurance Company within four weeks. 12. The Appeal is allowed in above terms.
(G.P. MITTAL) JUDGE JANUARY 19, 2012/vk