ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. ASYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant-Insurance Company, is concerned with the compensation granted for the death of a Professor in an accident. The appeal is only against the quantum as fixed by the Tribunal, which was at Rs. 73,29,400/-. There is no dispute as to the liability of the Insurance Company nor the negligence of the other vehicle, which hit the subject who was trying to enter into his car thus fatally injuring him. The subject succumbed to his injuries on the very same day at the Hospital.

(2.) The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Insurance Company would seriously challenge the compensation awarded under loss of dependency, loss of consortium, loss of love and affection, as also the Medical by-stander and funeral expenses. In fact, there is no medical bill submitted nor was there any requirement for a by-stander. Funeral expenses has also been granted at Rs. 25,000/-, which is far more than that permitted in the decision of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and Others,2017 5 KHC 350. The compensation for funeral expenses can only be Rs. 15,000/- and the compensation under that head would stand reduced. There is no requirement for a Medical bystander, since the injured died on the spot and the compensation of Rs. 10,000/- under Medical by-stander and funeral expenses would be deleted. Compensation for loss of consortium, again going by Pranay Sethi, has to be reduced to Rs. 40,000/-. Though serious contentions are raised as against the compensation for loss of love and affection, this Court is of the opinion that, the same can be sustained especially looking at the fact that the deceased had 4 children, the youngest of whom was a minor child. However, this Court is not inclined to sustain the entire compensation so granted and the same shall stand reduced to Rs. 1,00,000/-.

(3.) Looking at loss of dependency, the claimants were granted compensation at Rs. 69,78,400/-. The salary as proved by evidence was Rs. 88,125/- per month, which the deceased earned as a Professor in an Aided College. The Tribunal reduced 10% for Income Tax and 1/3 for personal expenses and the balance was multiplied with the multiplier '11' for 12 months and the compensation arrived at. The learned Senior Counsel contends that the admitted salary would take the total remuneration per annum above Rs. 10,00,000/- and the Income tax deduction to be applied was at 20%. It is also contended that there could be no multiplier applied at '11' on the salary as evidenced by the claimants since the deceased was on the verge of retirement. The deceased had only less than 3 years for retirement, which, in Aided Colleges in the State, is 56. Hence, there should have been a split multiplier applied, is the contention. It is also submitted that when the split multiplier is applied, the pension, which would have been earned by the wife, as family pension, had to be reckoned. Advancing the contention with respect to Income Tax Deduction, the learned Senior Counsel relies on Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121. As for the split multiplier to be applied, the learned Senior Counsel relies on Puttamma v. Narayana Reddy, (2014) 1 KerLT 738 (SC) and Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Valsa, (2015) 1 KerLT 781, the latter, a decision of the Division Bench of this Court.