PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI-2 vs. BEST INFRASTRUCTURE (INDIA) PVT. LTD.

MACA Nos.15/2017 & 966/2017

Page 1 of 6

$~14 & 15 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Decided on: 08th November, 2017

+ MAC.APP. 15/2017

RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD

..... Appellant

Through: Mr. A.K. Soni, Advocate

versus

SHAKUNTALA & ORS

..... Respondents Through: Mr. Anshuman Bal, Adv. for R-1 to 4

+ MAC.APP. 966/2017

SHAKUNTALA & ORS

..... Appellants Through: Mr. Anshuman Bal, Advocate

versus

RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. & ORS

..... Respondents Through: Mr. A.K. Soni, Advocate for R-1 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA

JUDGMENT (ORAL)

MACA Nos.15/2017 & 966/2017

Page 2 of 6

Insurance Company Ltd. (insurer) for the period in question and died in the consequence. His wife and three children (collectively, the claimants) instituted an accident claim case (suit no.4649/2016) on 19.02.2011 seeking compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 impleading the driver, owner and insurer of the car as party respondents. 2. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Tribunal) held inquiry and, by judgment dated 15.10.2016, accepted the claim that the death had occurred due to negligent driving of the car by its driver. It awarded compensation in the total sum of Rs.31,60,000/- calculating it thus :- Loss of income Rs.29,25,000/- Loss of Estate Rs.10,000/- Love and affection Rs.1,00,000/- Consortium Rs.1,00,000/- Funeral expenses Rs.25,000/- Total Rs.31,60,000/-

MACA Nos.15/2017 & 966/2017

Page 3 of 6

deceased was more than 55 years old and, therefore, the multiplier of 9 should have been applied. 5. Per contra, the claimants by their appeal (MACA 966/2017) submit that the tribunal fell into error by deducting Rs.275/- as conveyance allowance from the monthly income while calculating loss of income and by not including the benefit of future prospects. It is also the submission of the claimants that deduction on account of personal and living expenses should have been to the extent of one- fourth keeping in view that there were four dependent family members. 6. The arguments on the issue of negligence raised by the insurance company cannot be accepted. The negligence on the part of the car driver is writ large even in the pleadings. The car had swerved suddenly during the course of journey, the evidence showing it having collided against the pavement. Even if the driver of the car lost control in order to avoid collision against a motorcycle which had suddenly come in front, the sequence of events narrated reveal the negligence on his part. He was expected to be watchful about the conduct of other motorists on the road and to keep not only a safe distance but also move at a speed where he could check it if so required. The tribunal’s conclusion based on the principle of res ipsa loquitur does not call for any interference. 7. There are indeed errors in the calculation of loss of dependency by the tribunal. The amount of Rs.275/- receivable as conveyance allowance should not have been deducted since it was a part of the

MACA Nos.15/2017 & 966/2017

Page 4 of 6

regular terms and conditions of the service and would result in corresponding savings to the family. 8. Since the deceased was a regular and permanent employee of the bank, the element of future prospects had to be factored in. Going by the ruling of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court rendered on 31.10.2017 in SLP (C) 25590/2014, National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors., this factor will have to be restricted to 15%. 9. It appears that the first claimant Shakuntala appearing as her own witness PW-1 admitted that the eldest daughter Poonam (second claimant) was in private job. But then, it has to be remembered that she was just 22 years old and being unmarried would still be dependent on the father. The mere fact that she may have joined some service around the time of the death would not keep her claim out of consideration. In these circumstances, deduction on account personal and living expenses will have to be to the extent of one-fourth. 10. On the income of Rs.33,486/-, the income tax liability, as per the prevalent rates, for the financial year 2010-2011 would be about Rs.15,000/-, which will have to be discounted. 11. As per voter identity card (Ex. PW1/5), the age of the deceased as on 01.01.2008 was 53 years. In these circumstances, his age on the date of death (31.12.2010) would be 55 years 11 months. In this view, the submission of the insurer about the multiplier must be accepted. Instead of multiplier of 11, the multiplier of 9 would apply.

MACA Nos.15/2017 & 966/2017

Page 5 of 6

MACA Nos.15/2017 & 966/2017

Page 6 of 6

R.K.GAUBA, J. NOVEMBER 08, 2017 yg