ANJU GUPTA & ORS Vs UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD
- Citation2025 SCC OnLine Del 709
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
1. Consumable perks and allowances in the nature of reimbursements (such as special pay, electricity allowance, newspaper allowance, and car aid) which benefit the employee individually during his lifetime and are not enuring to the benefit of legal heirs should be deducted from the gross salary to arrive at the income of the deceased for the purpose of computing compensation, even though they constitute part of the monthly income earned during his lifetime. 2. Incentive and bonus payments which are discretionary, variable, subject to performance conditions, and not fixed annual entitlements cannot form part of the annual income of the deceased for the purpose of computing compensation in the absence of proof of consistent annual payment in previous years. 3. Where a deceased person is survived by a married spouse with independent income from personal efforts and by a parent with independent pension income, the fact that such dependents have their own separate income sources does not disentitle them from claiming loss of dependency; the loss of dependency is measured by the loss of the deceased's income contribution and must account for emotional, caregiving support, and contributions to the standard of living, and such independently-earned income of dependents cannot be set off against the compensation for loss of dependency. 4. In cases where the deceased was married and survived by four to six dependent family members, a deduction of one-fourth towards the personal expenses of the deceased is the correct deduction to apply, regardless of whether the surviving spouse has independent income. 5. For a deceased aged 42 years 9 months, a multiplier of 14 applies, being the relevant multiplier for the age group of 41 to 45 years. 6. For a deceased aged between 40 to 50 years, the addition for future prospects should be calculated at 30 per cent. 7. Loss of Consortium subsumes Loss of Love and Affection, and both heads should not be granted separately; each claimant is entitled to Rs. 40,000 as Loss of Consortium under current law, and the previous grant of separate compensation for Loss of Love and Affection should be eliminated. 8. Loss of Estate and Funeral Expenses should be fixed at Rs. 15,000 respectively as per the current sentencing guidelines, not Rs. 50,000 each. 9. Loss of Expectancy of Life is not an applicable head of compensation when computing compensation on account of the demise of a person, and any amount granted under this head should be deleted. 10. When an accident occurred in 2014, the rate of interest on compensation for death should be reduced to 9 per cent per annum in place of 12 per cent per annum, considering the prevailing rate of interest in that year.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
The aforesaid two cross Appeals shall be decided together as they
arise from the impugned Award dated 28.11.2015 vide which an amount of Rs.1,62,03,342/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum has been granted to the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4/Claimants on account of death of Shri Sharad Kumar Gupta (hereinafter referred to as “deceased”). MAC.APP. 146/2016: 2.
Briefly stated, on 24.02.2014 at about 12:30 P.M., the deceased was
crossing the road at Main Wazirabad Road, in front of Nirmandhin Jail Gate, when a Motorcycle bearing Registration No. DL-7SX-1801 which was coming from Bhajanpura side, which was being driven by the Respondent No. 5/Radhey Shyam, at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, hit the deceased who fell and sustained injuries. The deceased was taken to GTB Hospital in PCR Van and thereafter, shifted to Pushpanjali Crosslay Hospital, Vaishali on the same day.
On 01.03.2014, the deceased
succumbed to the injuries in the Hospital. 3.
An FIR No. 198/2014 under Sections 279/337/304A of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 was registered at Police Station Nand Nagari, Delhi. 4.
The Claim Petition under Section 140 and 166 of the Motor Vehicles
Signature Not Verified DigitallySigned By:VIKAS ARORA Signing Date:11.02.2025 23:07:08
MAC.APPs. 146/2016, 874/2018
Page 3 of 15
Act, 1988 was filed by the wife, mother and children of the deceased. The DAR was filed before the Ld. Tribunal. 5.
The Appellant/Insurance Company has challenged the Award dated
28.11.2015, on the following grounds:
(i) that the wife of the deceased was a Lecturer in a Government Polytechnic, Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh and the mother was getting a pension being a retired Government Employee and they were not dependent, and the Loss of Dependency should not have been granted; (ii) that 1/3rd instead of 1/4th should have been deducted; (iii) that the loss of Love and Affection has been wrongly granted as Rs.4,00,000/-; (iv) that the compensation for Loss of Estate and Funeral expenses in the sum of Rs.50,000/- each is liable to be reduced to Rs.15,000/each; (v) that the Expectancy of Life of Rs.50,000/- is required to be deleted; and (vi) that the Interest granted @ 12% per annum should be reduced to 6% per annum as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh vs. Rajbir Singh (2013) 9 SCC 54 or at the rate of 7.5% per annum as has been granted by the High Court. 6.
The learned counsel on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 1 to
4/Claimants has not raised any serious challenge to any of the grounds except that there was no evidence was led that the wife or the mother were working or getting any income. Therefore, the Loss of Dependency has been
Signature Not Verified DigitallySigned By:VIKAS ARORA Signing Date:11.02.2025 23:07:08
MAC.APPs. 146/2016, 874/2018
Page 4 of 15
rightly calculated. Moreover, the family pension being received by the Claimants, cannot be deducted by calculating the compensation. MAC.APP. 874/2018 7.
The
Appellants/Claimants
have
sought
enhancement
of
the
compensation on the following grounds: (i) that the learned Claim Tribunal has not calculated overall total payment made by the Employer to the deceased from 01.04.2013 to February, 2014 for the purpose of assessing his annual income. In fact, the income of the deceased was at least 25% more than what has been assessed. (ii) After the demise, no Income Tax has been filed for the Financial Year 2013-14, but the income tax has been deducted while calculating the income of the deceased. Also, the statutory exemptions available to the deceased from the taxable annual income have also not been considered; (ii) that the deceased had been contributing almost his entire salary to his family and the deduction towards his personal expenses has been made wrongly, (iii) that 1/4th deduction towards personal and living expenditure of the deceased has been made by the learned Claim Tribunal, which is on the higher side, when, in fact, it should have been 1/5 th of the total income of the deceased, (iv) that the deceased was 42 years 9 months old and the retirement age of ex-DVB Employee in BSES YPL (Employer) was 60 years, but the Multiplier has been wrongly applied as 14 instead of 17.25; (v) that the job of the deceased was subject to pay revision and
Signature Not Verified DigitallySigned By:VIKAS ARORA Signing Date:11.02.2025 23:07:08
MAC.APPs. 146/2016, 874/2018
Page 5 of 15
incentive, dearness allowance, bonus and annual increment etc., which have not been considered while calculating the income of the deceased; and (vi) that the future prospects have been wrongly determined as only 30%, when it should have been taken as 50%. 8.
Thus, the Appellants/Claimants have sought enhancement of the
compensation as granted by the learned Claim Tribunal. MAC.APP. 146/2016 & MAC.APP. 874/2018: Annual Income of the Deceased: 9.
The first challenge raised by both the parties is in regard to the
calculation of the annual income of the deceased and the deductions made towards the personal expenses. 10.
The learned Claim Tribunal has observed that the gross salary of the
deceased was Rs. 13,69,550/- per annum, out of which a sum of Rs. 2,30,111/- is deducted as tax at source. The net income of the deceased has been taken as Rs. 11,39,439/- per annum. 11.
The Appellant/Insurance Company has claimed that the Respondent
No. 1/Anju Gupta, wife of the deceased, has been taken as a dependent, when, in fact, she in her evidence as PW2, had admitted during her cross-examination as she was a qualified B.Tech (Electrical Engineering) and working as a Lecturer in a Government Polytechnic, Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh and her two children were studying in Kanpur. She also stated that she is getting a pension of Rs. 29,000/- per month on account of demise of her husband. She further stated that her mother-in-law (Respondent No. 4) herself is a retired as a Staff Nurse from Government Hospital, Uttarakhand, and was drawing a pension of Rs. 9,000/- per month. It is
Signature Not Verified DigitallySigned By:VIKAS ARORA Signing Date:11.02.2025 23:07:08
MAC.APPs. 146/2016, 874/2018
Page 6 of 15
asserted that these factors have not been taken into account while calculating the Loss of Dependency. 12.
It is further asserted that since Respondent No. 1/Anju Gupta was
working and having a regular monthly income and the Respondent No. 4, mother-in-law was getting a monthly pension of Rs. 9,000/-, the deduction should have been made as 1/3rd instead of 1/4th. 13.
PW2/Anju Gupta in her Affidavit of Evidence had deposed that her
husband at the time of demise was working in BSES Yamuna Power Limited and was drawing a salary of Rs. 1,35,000/- per month. 14.
The income of the deceased has also been proved by PW1/Rajeev
Kwatra, Manager, BSES Yamuna Power Limited, who had deposed that the last drawn net salary of deceased was Rs. 68,196/- per month. His Salary Slips for the month of January and February 2014 are collectively Ex. PW1/2. 15.
The Salary Slip of the deceased for the month of February 2014 reads
as under: BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. (A Joint Venture of Reliance Infrastructure Limited with Govt. of NCT, Delhi) SALARY MONTH: February 2014 EMPLOYEE NO: 40136514
NAME: SH. SHARAD KUMAR GUPTA BANK: ICICI BANK LTD.
DEPARTMENT: PLANNING & ENGINEERING (EHV) OT Bonus: 0.00
PAYSLIP NO. 1 C BANK A/C NO.: 629401124129
DESIGNATION: ASST. VICE PRESIDENT
Extra Days: 0.00
TMENT CODE: Cost Center: 39003
Signature Not Verified DigitallySigned By:VIKAS ARORA Signing Date:11.02.2025 23:07:08
MAC.APPs. 146/2016, 874/2018
Page 7 of 15
EARNINGS
This month (Rs)
Basic
Arrears
DEDUCTIONS
This month (Rs)
Arrears (Rs)
40,570.00
Income Tax
22,593.00
House Rent Allowance
14,841.00
Recovery of round off amt
0.38-
Variable
Dearness
44,523.00
Rounding off adjustment
0.38-
Special Pay (Allowance)
1,000.00
GPF
25,000.00
Electricity Allowance
895.00
Death Relief Fund
15.00
Newspaper Allowance
375.00
Shahdarn Society
500.00
Own Car Aid & MTC
5,500.00
DVB Engineers Ben Fund
100.00
Grade Pay
8,900.00
New
200.00
Allow
Group
Insuran
Scheme 116,604.00 GROSS EARNINGS
48,408.00 116,604.00
TOTAL DEDUCTIONS
48,408.00
NET PAY
68,196.00
Date of next increment :00.00.0000 Tax Payable:
252,704.00
Tax paid Upto curr. Month:
230,111.00
Tax Bal.Upto curr. Month:
22,593.00
GPG Deduction during current year: 245,000.00 GPF Balance as on 01.04.2013: Pan No:
759,271.00
ABLPG6958P
Housing Loan Balance:
0.00
Housing Int. Loan Bal:
0.00
Vehicle Loan Balance:
0.00
Vehicle Int. Loan Bal:
0.00
Computer Loan Balance:
0.00
Computer Int. Loan Bal:
0.00
16.
In the Salary Slip, it is clearly reflected that gross salary of the
deceased was Rs. 1,16,604/-, from which there was an Income Tax deduction of Rs. 22,593/-, thereby the net salary of deceased was Rs. 68,196/-. The gross salary included Special Pay (Allowance) of Rs. 1,000/-, Electricity Concession of Rs. 895/-, Newspaper Allowance of Rs. 375/- and Own Car Aid & MTC of Rs. 5,500/-, totalling to Rs. 7,700/-. These are the perks and allowances which the Petitioner was enjoying during his lifetime. 17.
In the case of Oriental Insurance Company v. Jashuben and
Ors (2008) 4 SCC 162, the Apex Court has discussed the aspect of inclusion of allowances and has observed that the amounts which were paid to the Signature Not Verified DigitallySigned By:VIKAS ARORA Signing Date:11.02.2025 23:07:08
MAC.APPs. 146/2016, 874/2018
Page 8 of 15
deceased as perks, should be included for computation of his monthly income as the same would have constituted a part of his monthly income by way of contribution to the family. However, the allowances which were for personal benefit, were liable to be deducted. 18.
Relying upon the above judgment, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court
has observed in the case of Ram Charan & Ors. vs The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., MAC.APP. 433/2013 decided on 18.10.2022, that including all Incentives, Bonus or Allowances to the income would be of inconsistent logic as even during the lifetime of the deceased, these allowances were being consumed by him and were not enuring to the benefit of the Legal Heirs. 19.
Thus, evaluating the nature of the allowance/perk becomes a decisive
factor for determining whether such allowance/perk would constitute a part of the actual income of the deceased 20.
Therefore, perks in the amount of Rs. 7,700/-, were the consumable
perks in the nature of reimbursements, the benefits of which were reaped by the employee individually and was thus, liable to be deducted from the income of the deceased. 21.
PW1/Rajeev Kwatra, Manager, BSES Yamuna Power Limited, in his
cross-examination further explained that the Bonus and Incentive are given as per Office Circular, Ex. PW1/5 to the employees, around the time of Deepwali, but the same had not been given to the deceased for the Financial Year 2013-14. 22.
This Office Circular Ex.PW1/5 in regard to grant of Bonus/ex-gratia
for the year 2013-14, observed that because of the commitment of the competent force, the Management had decided to grant bonus/ex-gratia of
Signature Not Verified DigitallySigned By:VIKAS ARORA Signing Date:11.02.2025 23:07:08
MAC.APPs. 146/2016, 874/2018
Page 9 of 15
Rs. 3,500/-, apart from ex-gratia of Rs. 33,500/- i.e., total a sum of Rs. 37,000/-, or proportionately to each eligible Team BSES employee of BYPL. It further stated that because BYPL had not achieved its AT&C Loss reduction to the desired level, a Special Payout of Rs. 10,000/- was being made. However, for the Financial Year 2014-15, an encouraging Incentive Scheme has already been released, each employee is expected to put in their best efforts towards reduction of AT&C losses during the Financial Year 2014-15. The components taken together come to Rs. 47,000/- (exgratia/bonus Rs. 3,500/- + ex-gratia Rs. 33,500/- + Special Payout of Rs. 10,000/-). The actual disbursement shall be made before Diwali and shall be subject to usual terms and conditions. 23.
Though this Office Circular has been produced by PW1/Rajeev
Kwatra, but the Circular itself shows that the ex-gratia payment is subject to the performance in achievement of AT&C loss reduction.
This Circular
itself states that this ex-gratia bonus is dependent upon the performance of the employees and is not a fixed bonus, to which every employee is entitled annually. In fact, it is a variable amount which depends upon the profits being made by the Employer. Moreover, though this Circular has been produced but PW1/Rajeev Kwatra himself has admitted that no ex-gratia payments towards Incentive have been made for the Financial Year 2013-14, for which there is no explanation. 24.
Pertinently, the incentives for the previous years have also not been
proved from where an assessment could be made if there was a consistent amount being paid annually on account of incentives.
Therefore, the
incentives as claimed by the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4/Claimants, cannot form part of the annual income of the deceased.
Signature Not Verified DigitallySigned By:VIKAS ARORA Signing Date:11.02.2025 23:07:08
MAC.APPs. 146/2016, 874/2018
Page 10 of 15
25.
Connected to this, learned counsel for the Appellant/Insurance
Company has contended that because PW2/Anju Gupta herself was employed as a Lecturer in a Government Polytechnic, Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh and getting a regular salary and the mother-in-law also was getting a pension of Rs. 9,000/- per month, they cannot be considered as dependent upon the deceased. Therefore, the deduction of 1/3rd towards Personal Expenses of the deceased should have been made, instead of 1/4th deductions. 26.
In the case of Dinesh Adhlak vs Pritam Singh & Ors. 2010 SCC
OnLine Del 165 it was observed that when a husband and wife, with separate incomes are living together and sharing their expenses, and in consequence of that fact, their joint living expenses are less than twice the expenses of each one living separately, then each by the fact of sharing, is conferring a benefit on the other. This results in higher savings; in addition, each spouse loses the benefit of services rendered by the other in managing the household. In such a situation, the claimant (surviving spouse) will be entitled to compensation both under the head of loss of dependency and loss to estate. 27.
The support a husband/son would have provided in the times of need
to his wife and mother cannot be measured in money. Thus, while deciding the entitlement of Loss of Dependency, one has to keep in mind emotional or caregiving support as well as situations where the Claimants still relies on the deceased’s income for any substantial expenses of their life which could include a contribution towards the standard of living or even financial support if the claimant is in a lower-paying job. 28.
Thus, merely because PW2/Anju Gupta, wife of deceased and the
mother of deceased are having their own independent resources of income
Signature Not Verified DigitallySigned By:VIKAS ARORA Signing Date:11.02.2025 23:07:08
MAC.APPs. 146/2016, 874/2018
Page 11 of 15
because of their own efforts, it cannot be taken into consideration while calculating the Loss of Dependency because it is, in fact, the loss of the Income of the deceased which has been caused to PW2/Anju Gupta and the mother. Therefore, merely because the mother and the wife are earning because of their personal efforts, it cannot be concluded that they have not been deprived of the financial resources. 29.
Thus, the income of the deceased is calculated as Rs. 87,183.5/-
per month or Rs. 10,46,199/- per annum. Deductions Towards Personal Expenses: 30.
The Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma v. DTC (2009) 6 SCC 121
has settled that where the deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, should be one-fourth (1/4th) where the number of dependent family members is 4 to 6. 31.
Admittedly, the deceased was survived by his mother, wife and two
children, deduction of 1/4th towards the Personal Expenses of the deceased has been rightly made and the same does not merit any interference. Multiplier: 32.
In the Cross-Appeal, the Claimants have sought enhancement on the
ground that the Multiplier has been wrongly applied as 14 instead of 17.25 as the deceased was 42 years 9 months old and as per the retirement age of ex-DVB Employee in BSES YPL (Employer) was 60 years. However, in the case of Sarla Verma v. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121the Apex Court has held that the multiplier of 14 would be applicable for 41 to 45 years. Therefore, multiplier has been applied correctly and warrants no interference. 33.
The Claimants have further sought enhancement on the ground that
future prospects have been wrongly determined as only 30%, when it should
Signature Not Verified DigitallySigned By:VIKAS ARORA Signing Date:11.02.2025 23:07:08
MAC.APPs. 146/2016, 874/2018
Page 12 of 15
have been taken as 50% as per National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 addition should be 30%, if the age of the deceased was between 40 to 50 years. 34.
In the present case, the deceased was 42 years 9 months old and
therefore, the Ld. Tribunal has correctly granted future prospects as 30%. Non-Pecuniary Heads: 35.
The next contention that has been raised is in regard to the grant of
Rs. 4,00,000/- towards Loss of Love and Affection. Rs. 50,000/- towards Loss of Estate and Rs. 50,000/- towards Funeral Expenses and Transport Expenses. 36.
In the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Satinder Kaur @
Satwinder Kaur AIR 2020 SC 3076, the Apex Court observed that Loss of Consortium subsumes Loss of Love and Affection. Therefore, the compensation need not be granted separately for Loss of Love and Affection and Loss of Consortium. 37.
In terms of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16
SCC 680, each of the Claimants is entitled to Rs. 40,000/- i.e., Rs. 1,60,000/as Loss of Consortium. Accordingly, the amount is revised. 38.
Likewise, the Loss of Estate and Funeral Expenses, the amount should
be Rs. 15,000/- respectively as per Pranay Sethi (supra). Loss of Expectancy of Life: 39.
The compensation of Rs. 50,000/- has been granted towards the Loss
of Expectancy of Life. However, while computing the compensation on account of demise of a person this head is not applicable. Therefore, the amount of Rs. 50,000/- under this Head, needs to be reduced. Rate of Interest:
Signature Not Verified DigitallySigned By:VIKAS ARORA Signing Date:11.02.2025 23:07:08
MAC.APPs. 146/2016, 874/2018
Page 13 of 15
40.
The interest has been granted @ 12% per annum. Considering the
accident had taken place in 2014 and considering the prevailing rate of interest in 2014, the rate of interest is reduced to 9% per annum. Relief:41.
Accordingly, the Compensation Amount is re-calculated as under:
S. No.
Name of Heads
Amount given by
Amount
Tribunal
modified by this Court
1.
Income of Deceased (A)
94,953.25
Rs. 87,183.5/-
less tax 2.
Add-Future Prospects (B)
30%
30% (same)
3.
Less-Personal Expenses
1/4
1/4 (same)
of Deceased (C) 4.
Monthly loss of
Rs. 92,579.951
Rs. 85,003.67
Rs. 11,10,959.42
Rs. 10,20,044
14
14 (same)
Dependency 5.
Annual loss of Dependency
6.
Multiplier (E)
7.
Total
Loss
of Rs. 1,55,53,432/-
Rs. 1,42,80,616/-
Dependency 8.
Loss of Consortium
Rs. 1,00,000/-
Rs.
1,60,000/-
(40,000 x 4) 9.
Loss
of
Love
Affection
and Rs. 4,00,000/- (Rs. 1 NIL Lakh
each
Signature Not Verified DigitallySigned By:VIKAS ARORA Signing Date:11.02.2025 23:07:08
MAC.APPs. 146/2016, 874/2018
Page 14 of 15
Claimant) 10. Loss of Estate
Rs. 50,000/-
11. Loss of Expectancy of Rs. 50,000/-
Rs. 15,000/NIL
Life 12. Funeral
and Rs. 50,000/-
Rs. 15,000/-
Transportation Expenses 13. Interest TOTAL
42.
12%
9%
Rs. 1,62,03,3452/-
Rs. 1,44,70,616/-
In view of above, the Award dated 28.11.2015 is modified to Rs.
1,44,70,616/- along with upto date interest @ 9% per annum till the date of deposit. The Appellant/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the award amount with the learned Claim Tribunal within four weeks, which shall be disbursed in terms of the Award. The excess amount, if any be returned to the Insurance Company, along with the Statutory deposit. 43.
Accordingly, the Appeals and the pending Applications, are disposed
of in the above terms.
(NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA) JUDGE FEBRUARY 10, 2025 S.Sharma
Signature Not Verified DigitallySigned By:VIKAS ARORA Signing Date:11.02.2025 23:07:08
MAC.APPs. 146/2016, 874/2018
Page 15 of 15
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free