Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1771 (PNJ)

Anita Singla v. Avtar Singh

2006-04-26

VINOD K.SHARMA

body2006
ORDER Vinod K. Sharma, J. - This is an appeal by the claimants for the enhancement of the compensation granted by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kurukshetra (for short the Tribunal), wherein the claimants have been granted compensation to the tune of Rs. 4,02,000/- along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum with effect from the date of petition till realisation. 2. The facts of the case are that on 21.4.1990 at about 10 a.m. Anil Kumar Singla and Dev Raj were coming back from Patiala to Kurukshetra in Maruti van No. HR-07-2357 along with Joginder Pal Singh complainant and the said van was being driven by Om Parkash. When the van arrived in the area of village Dhantori on G.T. Road, a Haryana Roadways Bus No. HNX-4357 came from the opposite side. The bus was being driven by Avtar Singh, respondent No. 1, at uncontrolable speed and in a most rash and negligent manner. The bus driver overtook truck No. HR-024-5274 against the traffic rules and hit the Maruti van driven by Om Parkash by coming on the wrong side. It has also been the case of the claimants that the van was being driven on its due left side at a moderate speed. The van was hit by the bus after which the bus damaged the parapet of the small bridge on the G.T. Road and in the accident Anil Kumar Singla and Dev Raj received fatal injuries and died on the spot. Om Parkash driver of the van also received grievous injuries and was removed to Civil Hospital, Shahabad. On these allegations it was alleged that the accident had taken place on account of rash and negligent driving of the bus by Avtar Singh. This appeal is concerned with MACT Case No. 76 of 1990 filed by Anita Singla, her two minor sons Ankur Singla & Aman Singla and Mrs. Anpurna Devi, mother of the deceased. 3. The claimants claimed that Anil Kumar Singla deceased was aged 33 years and was the sole proprietor of M/s. V.K. Pharmaceutical Pipli and was also in service of M/s. Anpurna & Sons and he was earning a sum of Rs. 6,000/- per month from the fir M/s. V.K. Pharmaceutical and was also getting Rs. 1,200/- per month as salary from M/s. Anpurna & Sons. 6,000/- per month from the fir M/s. V.K. Pharmaceutical and was also getting Rs. 1,200/- per month as salary from M/s. Anpurna & Sons. It was also pleaded that the deceased was income tax assessee and used to enjoy good health. The claimants claimed that a sum of Rs. 25,000/- was spent on funeral of the deceased. All the claimants claimed to be the dependents of the deceased Anil Kumar Singla. 4. The claim was contested by respondent Avtar Singh, driver who admitted the factum of the accident but denied the manner in which it was alleged. It was his case that it was Maruti van which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner at uncontrolable speed. It was alleged that when the van reached near the bridge its driver brought it to his right side and that the bus was driven on the left side at moderate speed. It was also his case that in spite of his efforts to avoid the accident by turning the bus on his left side the bus fell down the bridge. It was alleged that the driver of the Maruti van was negligent and the factum of having overtaken the truck No. HY-02-574 at the time of accident was also denied. 5. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues : 1. Whether the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the bus No. HNX-4357 by Avtar Singh respondent No. 1 resulting in the death of Anil Kumar Singla, Dev Raj and injuries to Om Parkash claimant ? OPP 2. On proof of issue No. 1, to what amount if any, are the claimants of the respective cases entitled and from whom ? OPP 3. Whether the petition is not maintainable as alleged ? OPR 4. Whether the petition is bad for mis-joinder of necessary parties ? OPR 5. Relief. 6. Learned Tribunal on issue No. 1 held that the accident had taken place on account of rash and negligent driving of Bus No. HNX-4357 by Avtar Singh, respondent No. 1 on account of which Anil Kumar Singla and Dev Raj sustained injuries and died on account of the said injuries. It was also held that Om Parkash was also injured in the said accident. Issue Nos. 3 and 4 were decided against the respondents for want of evidence. It was also held that Om Parkash was also injured in the said accident. Issue Nos. 3 and 4 were decided against the respondents for want of evidence. However, on issue No. 2 as already mentioned above the claimants were held entitled to a sum of Rs. 4,02,000/- as compensation. The findings of learned Tribunal relevant for the purpose of this appeal are reproduced below : "38. From the above documents produced by the claimants themselves, it is thus clearly made out that during the financial year 1987-88 and 1988-89 the income of the deceased consistently remained to be Rs. 22,000/- per annum and this income also included the salary income of Rs. 12,000/- per annum. But then in the financial year 1989-90, this income all of a sudden swelled to Rs. 51,438/-. In other words, there was thus an increase in the income of the deceased in the financial year 1989-90 to the tune of Rs. 29,438/- i.e. (Rs. 51,438/- minus Rs. 22,000/-) or say Rs. 30,000/-. In the document Ex. P-1 pertaining to computation of income the salary income has been shown to be Rs. 14,400/- although in the earlier two financial years i.e. 1987-88 and 1988-89 the salary income has been shown to be Rs. 12,000/-. The increase in the salary income of the deceased during the financial year 1989-90 as shown in Ex. P-1 has thus been shown so as to be in line with the evidence of Ms. Anita Singla who has stated that he used to get a salary of Rs. 1200/- per month from the other firm. No such certificate from M/s. Anpurna & Sons, Pipli has been produced nor any accountant or the Manager of the said firm examined in order to prove that the deceased was working as a pharmacist with the said firm and used to get a salary of Rs. 1,200/- per month. In my opinion, therefore, the excess amount of Rs. 30,000/- shown as income of the deceased during the last financial year 1989-90 is certainly an inflated and an exaggerated amount of the income of the deceased. The learned counsel for the petitioner has tried to convince me with regard to the income of the deceased to be Rs. In my opinion, therefore, the excess amount of Rs. 30,000/- shown as income of the deceased during the last financial year 1989-90 is certainly an inflated and an exaggerated amount of the income of the deceased. The learned counsel for the petitioner has tried to convince me with regard to the income of the deceased to be Rs. 51,438/- in the financial year 1989-90 by saying that this was the income which was shown in the return of income filed in the Income Tax Department by Ms. Anita Singla claimant No. 1 and so there was no scope for any exaggeration or inflated figure particularly when she had to pay income tax on the returned income. But then in my opinion, the said argument is without merit. No doubt, it is a matter of common observation that people generally do not give the exact account of their real income while filing returns with the income tax office. But then the instant case is not the case where the return was filed by the deceased himself. It is a case where the earlier two returns were filed by the deceased himself whereas the last return was filed by the widow of the deceased on 31.8.1990. The accident took place on 21.4.1990 and Anil Kumar Singla died on that very day. The present claim petition was filed by his widow, two minors sons and mother on 14.6.1990 where in column No. 6, the income of the deceased has been shown as Rs. 6,000/- per month from M/s. V.K. Pharmaceutical, Pipli and Rs. 1,200/- per month as salary from M/s. Anpurna & Sons, Pipli as a Pharmacist. The return of income is shown to have been filed by Ms. Anita Singla, widow of the deceased on 31.8.1990 i.e. after about more than four months of the death of Anil Kumar Singla and after about 2-1/2 months of the filing of the claim petition so as to be in line with the plea taken by the claimants in their petition with regard to the income of the deceased. It is indeed surprising that during the two earlier financial years viz. 1987-88 and 1988-89 as per computation of income shown in documents Ex. P-10 and Ex. P-7 respectively, the deceased was consistently having an income of Rs. 22,000/- per annum and which also included a sum of Rs. 12,000/- per annum by way of salary. It is indeed surprising that during the two earlier financial years viz. 1987-88 and 1988-89 as per computation of income shown in documents Ex. P-10 and Ex. P-7 respectively, the deceased was consistently having an income of Rs. 22,000/- per annum and which also included a sum of Rs. 12,000/- per annum by way of salary. After deducting the amount of salary his income was merely Rs. 10,000/- per annum in these two financial years. As stated above in the financial year 1989-90, his income from salary has been shown as Rs. 14,000/-. Thus his income after deducting the salary income comes to Rs. 37,040/- or say Rs. 37,000/- per annum in the financial year 1989-90. Assuming for the sake of arguments that the deceased had a salary income of Rs. 12,000/- per annum in the earlier two financial years and the same was enhanced to Rs. 14,400/- in the financial year 1989-90, then also the income from other source increased from Rs. 10,000/- in each of the two financial years to Rs. 37,000/- in the last financial year or in other words there is shown to be about a four fold increase in the income of the deceased after deducting his salary income. Here the learned counsel for the claimants has tried to explain by saying that this income i.e. Rs. 37,000/- also includes certain capital gains of the deceased. But then a perusal of the computation of income given in Ex. P-1 shows that only a sum of Rs. 5,000/- has been added by way of capital gains in the financial year 1989-90. In other words, even if the said capital gains are deducted from the income of Rs. 37,000/- then also the income of the deceased comes to Rs. 32,000/- i.e. more than a three fold increase over the income of the earlier two financial years. In my opinion therefore, the claimants have certainly given an exaggerated and inflated account of the income of the deceased during the financial year 1989-90 while filing the return of income with the Income Tax Department pertaining to the assessment year 190-91 on 31.8.1990 in order to claim a higher amount of compensation. 39. It has now to be seen as to how much income of the deceased be taken to be his real income during the financial year 1989-90. As stated above, the excess income comes to Rs. 39. It has now to be seen as to how much income of the deceased be taken to be his real income during the financial year 1989-90. As stated above, the excess income comes to Rs. 29,438/- or say Rs. 30,000/- over and above the income of the deceased during the earlier two financial years. In my opinion it will be just and proper to hold that the real income of the deceased was not more than half of the excess income shown in the return even if the income from salary is taken to be that which has been shown in Ex. P-1. In other words, the excess income can be taken to Rs. 15,000/- over and above the income during the earlier two financial years and no more. In other words the income of the deceased during the financial year 1989-90 can well be taken to be Rs. 22,000/- (as per documents Ex. P-7 to Ex. P-9 and Ex. P-10 to Ex. P-12) plus Rs. 15,000/- (i.e. half of the excess income shown in Ex. P-1 to Ex. P-6) i.e. Rs. 37,000/- in all and no more. 40. It has now to be seen as to what was the dependency of the claimants on the deceased. Having regard to the education and status of the deceased as also the facts and circumstances of the case, in my opinion, he must be keeping 1/3rd of his income for his own upkeep and maintenance. This comes to Rs. 12,333/-. The dependency of the claimants thus comes to Rs. 24,667/- or rounding it off Rs. 25,000/- per annum and no more. 41. Relying upon the Full Bench authority cited as Lachhman Singh and others v. Ms. Gurmit Kaur and others, 1979 Accident Claims Journal 170, sixteen will be the suitable multiplier in the instant case. The total amount of compensation thus comes to Rs. 4,00,000/- (Rs. four lacs) and no more. 42. Adding a sum of Rs. 2,000/- as the amount which must have been spent on cremation and last rites of the deceased, the total amount of compensation comes to Rs. 4,02,000/- (Rs. four lacs two thousand) to which the claimants in this case are held entitled order accordingly. 43. Having regard to the fact that Ms. Anpurna Devi widow and mother of the decreased is aged 75 years as per statement of Ms. 4,02,000/- (Rs. four lacs two thousand) to which the claimants in this case are held entitled order accordingly. 43. Having regard to the fact that Ms. Anpurna Devi widow and mother of the decreased is aged 75 years as per statement of Ms. Anita Singla PW-1 and that she is also getting pension of Rs. 500/- per month from the Government besides other benefits and payments on the death of her husband who has stated to be a Tehsildar, in my opinion, out of the total amount of compensation a sum or Rs. 25,000/- (Rs. Twenty five thousand) be paid to her i.e. petitioner No. 4 and no more. Order accordingly." 7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants has assailed the findings of the learned Tribunal referred to above primarily on the ground that there was overwhelming documentary evidence by way of income tax return to show the income of the deceased. He also submitted that as income tax was paid on the said amount the same should not have been doubted, and therefore, the claimants were entitled to the amount claimed. 8. I have considered the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the appellants and do not agree with the same. The learned Tribunal has taken into consideration all the material available on record. The finding of the learned Tribunal has to be seen keeping in view the fact that the return on the basis of which enhancement is sought was, in fact, filed after the death of Anil Kumar Singla and even after the claim petition has been filed. So the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal that the same cannot be accepted to be true income of the deceased cannot be faulted with. Therefore, I do not agree with the contention raised by the counsel for the appellants and affirm the findings on issue No. 3 also. However, it is to be seen that the deceased was only 33 years of age and therefore, multiplier should have been 17 instead of 16. The finding on issue No. 3 is modified to this extent and it is held that the claimants would be entitled to Rs. 4,25,000/- by applying a multiplier of 17. The compensation is accordingly enhanced to Rs. 4,25,000/-. In addition thereto the claimants would also be entitled to a sum of Rs. 2,000/- on account of cremation expenses and another sum of Rs. 4,25,000/- by applying a multiplier of 17. The compensation is accordingly enhanced to Rs. 4,25,000/-. In addition thereto the claimants would also be entitled to a sum of Rs. 2,000/- on account of cremation expenses and another sum of Rs. 5,000/- for loss of consortium. Thus, the total compensation payable to the claimants would be Rs. 4,32,000/-. The claimants shall also be entitled to interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of application till the final payment. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. Order accordingly.