Back
2023 Supreme(Del) 4054
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Navin Chawla, J.
National Insurance Co. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Dhaneshwar Sharma & Ors. – Respondents
MAC.APP. 109 of 2016
Decided On : 17-08-2023
Mr.Manoj R.Sinha, Advocate, for the Appellant.
Mr.S.N.Parashar, Advocate, for the Respondent-1.
The court addressed the issue of duplicacy in compensation, the application of multiplier for determining 'Loss of Income', the grant of future prospects, deduction of income tax, and the rate of interest in determining the compensation.
Headnote:
Compensation - Duplicacy of Compensation - Loss of Income, Loss of Leaves - Loss of Income, Loss of Leaves - Loss of Income, Loss of Leaves
Fact of the Case:
The appeal challenges the Award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-01, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi, awarding compensation to the respondent. The appellant argues that there is duplicacy in the compensation awarded for loss of income and loss of leaves.
Finding of the Court:
The court finds that there is indeed duplicacy in the compensation awarded and modifies the award to grant only one month's salary under the head of 'Loss of Income'.
Issues: Duplicacy of Compensation, Multiplier for determining 'Loss of Income', Future Prospects, Deduction of Income Tax, Interest
Ratio Decidendi: The court rejects the challenge to the multiplier for determining 'Loss of Income' and sets aside the compensation granted for future prospects, directing a rework of the compensation. The court also remands the matter to rework the compensation for 'Loss of Income' by considering gross salary and deducting income tax. The challenge to the rate of interest is also rejected.
Final Decision: The Impugned Award is set aside and the Claim Petition is remanded to the learned Tribunal for fresh computation of compensation. The appellant and the respondent no.1 are directed to appear before the learned Tribunal on a specified date. The present appeal is allowed with no order as to costs.
JUDGMENT
Navin Chawla, J. (Oral)--This appeal has been filed challenging the Award dated 05.10.2015 (hereinafter referred to as the `Impugned Award.) passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-01, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the `Tribunal.) in MACT no.219/10/11, titled Sh. Dhaneswar Sharma v. Anish Ahmad & Others.
2. By the Impugned Award, the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.8,67,760/- in favour of the respondent no.1 herein, as compensation, along with interest @10% per annum with effect from 26.11.2010 till its realization.
Duplicacy of Compensation under different heads:
3. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Tribunal has erred in awarding compensation for same reason under multiple heads in favour of the respondent no.1. He submits that on one hand, the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.70,728/- on the head of `Loss of Income' in favour of the respondent no.1, in the same breath, has awarded a sum of Rs.1,00,480/- on account of `Loss of Leaves'. He submits that the accident had occurred on 15.07.2010. The learned Tribunal has stated that keeping in view the medical record of the respondent no.1, who had suffered grievous injuries, he must have taken at least three months to get himself recovered from the said injuries and, therefore, awarded `loss of income' calculated at his monthly income multiplied by three, equivalent to Rs.70,728/-. At the same time, the learned Tribunal has found that the respondent no.1 had remained on leave between 17.08.2010 to 22.12.2010, for a period of 128 days on medical ground. The learned Tribunal has therefore, awarded a sum of Rs.785/- x Rs.128/- = Rs.1,00,480/- towards the head of `Loss of Leaves'. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that, therefore, there is duplicacy in the Award of compensation.
4. The learned counsel for the respondent no.1 could not seriously dispute the above submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant.
5. It appears from the Impugned Award itself that the respondent no.1 had remained on leave from 17.08.2010 to 22.12.2010 due to medical grounds. As the same has been awarded to the claimant on the head `Loss of Leaves', the respondent no.1 could not have gained double benefit by getting the full salary for the period commencing from 17.08.2010 to 22.12.2010 under the head of `Loss of Income..
6. Accordingly, the Impugned Award in so far as it grants three months salary to the respondent no.1 on the head of `Loss of Income' shall stand modified. The respondent no.1 shall be held entitled to only one month's salary under the head of `Loss of Income'.
Multiplier for determining `Loss of Income':
7. The next challenge of the learned counsel for the appellant to the Impugned Award is that the learned Tribunal has erred in adopting a multiplier of 15 for determining the `Loss of Income' of the respondent no.1. He submits that on the date of the accident, the respondent no.1 would have been 40 years and 7 months old. He submits that, therefore, in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma v. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121, a multiplier of 14 instead of multiplier of 15 should have been applied by the learned Tribunal.
8. I do not find any merit in the said challenge of the appellant to the Impugned Award.
9. This Court in Sheeba @ Shiva v. TATA AIG Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd. & Ors., NC:2023:DHC:5084 has considered this issue and observed as under:
"9. On the second issue, it is not disputed before this Court that the appellant was aged around 25 years and 8 months on the date of the accident.
10. In Shashikala and Ors. v. Gangalakshmamma and Anr., 2015 ACJ 1239, relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant, it has been held as under:
"17. Insofar as appropriate multiplier, the date of birth of the deceased as per driving licence was 16.6.1961. On the date of accident, i.e., 14.12.2006, the deceased was aged 45 years, 5 months and 28 days and the Tribunal has taken
