Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 2386 (RAJ)

Anju v. R. S. R. T. C.

2011-11-08

MOHAMMAD RAFIQ

body2011
RAFIQ, J.—This appeal has been preferred by the claimants dissatisfied with the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.8.85,000/- as compensation for payment to the claimants in a death claim. Deceased Sanjay Kumar Shukla was a Doctor. He died in a road accident involving the vehicle No.RJ 14P 1696 insured with the respondent-insurance company. 2. Contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the income tax returns of the deceased proved his income much more than what has been accepted by the learned Tribunal. The Tribunal has illegally ignored the evidence of the widow claimant appellant No.1 Anju, who stated that the monthly income of her husband was Rs.24,000 at the time of accident. He was an E.N.T. expert and used to run his own clinic in a vicinity like Sriganganar. He used to submit annual return of income. Learned counsel invited attention of the Court towards the Ex.1 dated 23.6.1999 and argued that the gross income of the deceased for the assessment year 1994-95 was Rs.82,692/-, and for the year 1995-96, Rs.93,788, for 1996-97, Rs.1,25,785. His gross income for the year 1997-98 upto the date of his death on 10.12.1997 was Rs.2,72,115/- which fact has been proved by witness AW-1 Gokul Chand, who was an Accountant in the office of the Chartered Accountant Purshottam Saluja. The learned Tribunal has illegally ignored the income tax return of the year 1997-98, however, the deceased during his life time deposited advance tax for the aforesaid assessment year. Even otherwise, learned counsel argued that it was the gross income which should have been taken as basis not the net income which form basis for taxation, which is altogether for different purpose. The income was that which was actually received by the deceased and was declared in the income tax return and, therefore, that income has to be accepted for the purpose of computation of income. Learned counsel argued that only a sum of Rs.15,000/- has been awarded for loss of consortium and for loss on account of damage of vehicle, only a sum of Rs.40,000/- has been awarded, which are too meager. 3. Learned counsel argued that only a sum of Rs.15,000/- has been awarded for loss of consortium and for loss on account of damage of vehicle, only a sum of Rs.40,000/- has been awarded, which are too meager. 3. Shri Virendra Agarwal, learned counsel for the respondent opposed the appeal and submitted that last income tax return that was filed after death of Doctor Sanjay Kumar Shukla includes an income certificate is acceptable, however, higher amount of compensation was calculated, whereas actual income has to be accepted only on the basis of income tax return filed by the deceased in his life time. Learned counsel argued that there was nothing illegal in taking gross income as the basis because in doing so, the Tribunal has not made any deductions by accepting that amount to be actual contribution to the family. Learned counsel argued that the vehicle that was damaged was 11 years old Maruti Car for which amount of Rs.40,000/- has rightly been awarded. It was argued that total amount that was awarded as compensation is Rs.8,85,000 apart from interest, which amount if taken cumulatively, it will exceed Rs.10 lacs and therefore the amount of compensation is excessive and need no interference. 4. Shri Rakesh Bhargava, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.8,85,000/- only and if that amount is deposited in bank and would get interest @ 7.5% also, then also it is less than the income of the deceased which was more than Rs.1,20,000/- per annum. Thus the amount of compensation cannot be said to be excessive. 5. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival submissions and perused the material on record. 6. The Tribunal in my considered view was not justified in taking the net income as the basis for computation of compensation because what the deceased has declared is gross income which he earned, out of which he may have been allowed permissible deductions for the purpose of income tax assessment and it is for that purpose that the net income that form basis for computation of net taxable income, but that cannot be a reason to include the total actual income of the deceased. 7. 7. Contention that no deduction has been made by the Tribunal for self expenses of the deceased, therefore, this method adopted by the Tribunal may be held to be justified, cannot be accepted because in the normal course the entire actual income of the deceased should form basis for computation of the compensation by applying the judicially accepted formula which is that for self expenses of the deceased, a certain amount has been deducted. 8. In the present case, in so far as the last income tax return that was filed after death of deceased i.e. for the assessment year 1997-98, the income declared in the last assessment year 1997-98, cannot be accepted because therein certainly the income was shown three times than the previous year. Merely because the deceased filed income tax return in his life time does not justify acceptance of that to be his income. However, in so far as the previous year is concerned, there is certainly a trend of increase in the income of the deceased with every passing year, which is evident from the fact that in the assessment year 1994-95 his net income was Rs.82,692, then in 1995-96, his net income was 41,540 and then in 1996-97 it was 1,25,785. It has to be accepted that if the deceased would have survived, there would have been a definite increase in his income for the further years. To put on the safer side, it can be accepted when his net income in the year 1996-97 was Rs.1,25,785/-, on that basis, it can be held that he would have been earning Rs.10,000 per month. Having held so, I find that since there are five claimants, as per the ratio of the judgment of Supreme Court in Sarla Verma & Ors. vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. (2009) 6 SCC 121 = 2009(1) CCR 276 (SC) = 2009(4) RLW 2785 (SC), 1/4th amount should be deducted for the self expenses of the deceased. That means that the dependency can be accepted at Rs.7,500 per month. The learned Tribunal has accepted the multiplier of 15. However, as per the judgment of Supreme Court in Sarla Verma, supra, the correct multiplier would be 16. Applying the said multiplier, the total quantum of compensation would come to 7500 x 12 x 16 = Rs.14,40,000. That means that the dependency can be accepted at Rs.7,500 per month. The learned Tribunal has accepted the multiplier of 15. However, as per the judgment of Supreme Court in Sarla Verma, supra, the correct multiplier would be 16. Applying the said multiplier, the total quantum of compensation would come to 7500 x 12 x 16 = Rs.14,40,000. The award of Rs.15,000 for loss of consortium and love and affection to the claimants also cannot be justified, which is marginally increased to Rs.25,000/-. The appellants are thus held entitled to a sum of Rs.14,65,000. The appellant shall also receive interest @ 7.5% per annum on the enhanced amount of compensation from the date of filing claim petition. The appeal is accordingly allowed.