Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 5 (RAJ)

Manohar Ben v. Sumesh Chawla

2014-01-02

ARUN BHANSALI

body2014
JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 07.05.2002 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Udaipur ('the Tribunal'), whereby, for the death of one Chandra Prakash, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 3,27,000/- (wrongly indicated as Rs. 3,37,000/- in the award) as compensation alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing application for compensation ('the application') i.e. 06.04.1996. 2. The facts in brief may be noticed thus: on 15.08.1995 at about 06.00 PM the deceased Chandra Prakash was travelling in a Jeep, which met with an accident with another Jeep bearing No.RJ-06-C-1160 owned by the respondent - Sumesh Chawla, which resulted in death of Chandra Prakash. 3. The application for compensation was filed by the appellants before the Tribunal, inter alia, it was claimed that the deceased Chandra Prakash was aged about 40 years and was involved in business from which his monthly income was Rs. 3,127/- and claimed loss of income at Rs. 9,79,500/- and various sums under conventional heads like loss of consortium, mental agony, etc. The application was opposed by the Insurance Company by filing reply. 4. After evidence was led by the parties and the submissions were made, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving by a Jeep owned by the respondent - Sumesh Chawla and the Insurance Company was liable for payment of compensation. 5. While assessing the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal took the age of the deceased at 40 years and based on the Income-tax Returns, which were produced as Exhibit-156 to 160, assessed the income at Rs. 45,000/- and after deducting ⅓ towards personal expenses and applying multiplier of 10 awarded a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- towards loss of income and a sum of Rs. 25,000/- towards mental agony and Rs. 2,000/- towards funeral expenses alongwith interest as noticed above. 6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal has not taken into consideration the Return for the year 1995-96, wherein, the income of the deceased has been shown at Rs. 47,550/-, deduction at ⅓ is excessive looking to the number of dependents and the Tribunal has not awarded any sum on account of future prospects. 7. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal has not taken into consideration the Return for the year 1995-96, wherein, the income of the deceased has been shown at Rs. 47,550/-, deduction at ⅓ is excessive looking to the number of dependents and the Tribunal has not awarded any sum on account of future prospects. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company submitted that the Return for the year 1995-96 was filed after death of said Chandra Prakash, in the Return pertaining the assessment year 1994-95, the date of birth has been indicated as 19.05.1953 and as such the deceased was aged 42 years at the time of accident and further from the oral statement of the claimant-wife, it is apparent that the deceased was spending ⅓ on himself and was only contributing ⅔ towards the family and, therefore, the Tribunal was justified in deducting ⅓ towards personal expenses. 8. I have considered the rival submissions. 9. From the Income-tax Returns filed by the claimants and the oral statement of the wife of the deceased, it is apparent that the statement made by the wife is not specific with reference to the said Returns and she has made only a lump sum statement. The return for the year 1995-96 indicating an income of Rs. 47,550/- was filed after the death of said Chandra Prakash and, therefore, the same cannot be taken into consideration. The income for the year 1994-95 has been shown at Rs. 41,960/-, which included income from business at Rs. 38,590/-, income from other source at Rs. 3,390/- and interest income at Rs. 525/-. As such, apparently the income of the deceased from business or profession can only be taken at Rs. 38,590/-. Further, the age of the deceased has to be taken based on the date of birth disclosed in the said Income-tax Return i.e. 19.05.1953, which brings the age of the deceased at 42 years. 10. So far as the deduction for personal expenses at ⅓ is concerned as noticed above, the wife of the deceased has indicated the contribution by the deceased in a lump sum manner and the same alone cannot be the basis for the deduction as the deceased was survived by wife and four minor children. 10. So far as the deduction for personal expenses at ⅓ is concerned as noticed above, the wife of the deceased has indicated the contribution by the deceased in a lump sum manner and the same alone cannot be the basis for the deduction as the deceased was survived by wife and four minor children. The deduction as well as the multiplier has to be adopted as per the guidance provided by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121 : AIR 2009 SC 3104 , whereby, for age group from 41 to 45 years, the multiplier provided is 14 and for five dependents the deduction is 1/4. 11. So far as the award of future prospects is concerned, from the Income-tax Returns placed on record, it is apparent that the deceased was in settled business and he has been consistently filing Returns. As such, the claimants are also entitled for compensation on account of future prospects of the deceased @ 30% for the loss of income. 12. In view of the above discussions, the claimants would be entitled to the compensation as under : ( Rs. 38590 + 11577 = 50167 X 14 = 702338 - 175585) = Rs. 5,26,755/-. 13. The rest of the award under conventional heads does not call for any interference. 14. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. The award passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs. 5,53,755/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of application i.e. 06.04.1996 till the date of payment. 15. The amount of enhanced compensation shall be paid by the Insurance Company alongwith interest to the claimants within a period of two months.No costs.Appeal partly allowed. *******