Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 90 (MP)

Suchitra Sinha v. Baijnath

2005-01-17

R.V.RAVEENDRAN, SHANTANU KEMKAR

body2005
JUDGMENT Kemkar, J. -- This appeal is filed by the Claimants against the award dated 14.9.1998 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shajapur in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 74/1994. It is not in dispute that Dr. Sushi I Kumar Sinha died in an accident caused by Truck No. CIG 8535 when the deceased was standing near his parked motorcycle on Agra Bombay Road near Khujner crossing. Appellant No.1 is widow, appellant No.2 is daughter and appellants No. 3 and 4 are sons of the deceased. The appellants filed a Claim Petition seeking compensation of Rs. 12,50,000/- for the death of Dr. Sushil Kumar Sinha. They claimed that the deceased was aged 48 years and was a private doctor practicing in Homeopathy and Ayurved System of Medicine and was earning Rs. 10,000/- to 12,000/- per month. The Claims Tribunal found that the deceased was aged 48 years at the time of death and assessed his income to Rs. 18,000/- per year making deductions of 1/3rd on account of his personal expenditure, living expenses, contribution to the family was arrived at Rs. 12,000/- per year. By applying the multiplier of 13 it arrived at the total loss of dependency at Rs. 1,56,000/-, a further sum of Rs. 2,000/- for funeral expenses, Rs.5,000/- as consortium to widow was added and the award was made for Rs.1,63,000/-, with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of application. In this appeal the only question involved is whether the compensation amount as awarded by the Tribunal is just or not. Along with this appeal a certificate dated 20.1.1999 issued by the office of Income Tax Officer, Guna certifying that the income of the deceased was assessed for the financial period i.e. 1.4.1992 to 31.3.1993 relating to assessment year 1993-94 to be Rs. 34,350/- has been filed along with an application I.A. No. 2975/2000. Learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company has seriously disputed this certificate and contended that in the absence of income tax return, such certificate is not admissible and that there is no justification in taking on record the said certificate. We find substance in the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondents-Insurance Company. It is significant that the copy of income tax return has not been filed. The date on which return was filed is not disclosed. We find substance in the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondents-Insurance Company. It is significant that the copy of income tax return has not been filed. The date on which return was filed is not disclosed. The appellants did not produce any evidence about income tax return before the Tribunal nor stated that any return has been filed. They did not even plead that the deceased was an income tax payee or assessee. It is thus clear that a return of income has been filed on behalf of the deceased, after his death. Such a return showing conveniently a higher income filed after the death resulting in any assessment cannot be a relevant piece of evidence and cannot be entertained. In this view of the matter, we feel that the application deserves to be rejected a.1d the same is accordingly rejected. About the assessment of income of the deceased by the Tribunal, we feel that it is on lower side. The deceased was practicing in Homeopathy and Ayurved System of Medicine. His income can be safely assessed to Rs. 2,500/- per month or Rs. 30,000/- per year instead of Rs. 18,000/- as assessed by the Tribunal. Having regard to the fact that family of the deceased consisted of himself, his wife, daughter and two sons, it is appropriate to deduct one fourth and not one third towards his personal expenditure and living expenses. Thus, the annual dependency comes to Rs. 22,500/-. By applying the multiplier of 13, the total loss of dependency is Rs. 2,92,500/-. To this, we add Rs. 2,500/- for funeral expenses and Rs.5,000/- for loss of consortium. Thus, the total amount of compensation is determined to Rs. 3,00,000/-, which according to us is just compensation. Accordingly, we allow this appeal in part and increase compensation from Rs. 1,63,000/- to Rs. 3,00,000/-. The rate of interest in regard to Rs.1,63,000/- awarded by the Tribunal shall remain unaltered. However, the increased sum shall carry interest only at the rate of five percent per annum from the date of application till its realization. No order as to costs.