Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1139 (RAJ)

Prakash Chandra v. Mohan Singh

2016-08-05

ARUN BHANSALI

body2016
JUDGMENT : Arun Bhansali, J. 1. At the request of learned counsel for the parties, the appeal is finally heard. 2. This appeal is directed against judgment and award dated 01.11.2012 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajsamand ('the Tribunal'), whereby, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 4,88,000/- as compensation to the appellants. 3. The application for compensation was filed by the appellants-claimants for death of their wife/mother – Smt. Sushila. It was, inter-alia, indicated that on 08.07.2008 the deceased was travelling in RSRTC Bus No. RJ01-P-2949 when the said bus collided with Truck No. RJ27-G-5830 on account of rash and negligent driving by driver of the Truck, which resulted in injuries to the passengers and Smt. Sushila suffered grievous injuries and succumbed to the same on 10.07.2008. It was claimed that the deceased was aged 48 years, was engaged in business of Oil and Lubricants and her annual income was Rs. 1,50,000/-, wherein, she used to spend Rs. 20,000/- for her personal expenses and rest of the amount was spent on the family. 4. The respondents filed reply and disputed the averments made in the application. 5. The Tribunal framed four issues and came to the conclusion that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Truck. While calculating the amount of compensation, the Tribunal did not accept the plea raised by the claimants about income of the deceased and assumed her services to the family along with loss of consortium and love & affection at Rs. 3,000/- per month and after applying multiplier of 13 awarded compensation of Rs. 4,68,000/-, Rs. 10,000/- was awarded towards funeral expenses and Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of estate. 6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal committed grave error in awarding a meager sum to the appellants as compensation, inasmuch as, the appellants had produced income tax returns (Exhibits-9 to 13) pertaining to the years 2004-05 to 2008-09 indicating a stable income from business of deceased Smt. Sushila and there was no reason to disbelieve the said documents and the Tribunal on perfunctory reasoning has denied compensation for loss of income. It was further submitted that the Tribunal has not awarded any amount under the head of loss of consortium and/or loss of love and affection to the appellants and, therefore, the award passed by the Tribunal deserves to be modified adequately. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent supported the award impugned. It was submitted that though the returns have been produced, no supportive documents were produced and, therefore, the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the said income tax returns and in awarding amount only towards the services being rendered by Smt. Sushila. It is further submitted that the amount awarded @ Rs. 3000/- by the Tribunal includes the amount of loss of consortium and loss of love and affection and, therefore, there was no need to provide for the same under a separate head. 8. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 9. A bare look at the plea raised by the claimants in the application reveals that the same indicates that the deceased was engaged in the business of Oil and Lubricants. It was also claimed that the deceased was an income tax payee and based on the said averments compensation was sought. 10. While leading the evidence, returns pertaining to the assessment year 2004-05, which pertained to financial year 2003-04 to the assessment year 2008-09, which pertained to financial year 2007-08 were produced as Exhibits-9 to 13. Along with the said returns, computations of income were also produced. 11. A bare look at the returns also indicates that the same were filed in the respective years i.e. 2004 to 2009. However, the return for the assessment year 2008-09 (Exhibit-12) was filed after the death of the deceased. The returns indicate income from business as well as other income. The other income pertains to the interest. So far as business income is concerned, the same has been indicated in the returns as under:- Assessment year Income 2004-05 Rs. 60,000/- 2005-06 Rs. 60,000/- 2006-07 Rs. 72,000/- 2007-08 Rs. 96,000/- 2008-09 Rs. 1,29,500/- 12. In the statement before the Tribunal when the husband of the deceased was cross-examined, he stated that the income was of the deceased and from the said income she used to take care of the family and spent money on the family. 60,000/- 2005-06 Rs. 60,000/- 2006-07 Rs. 72,000/- 2007-08 Rs. 96,000/- 2008-09 Rs. 1,29,500/- 12. In the statement before the Tribunal when the husband of the deceased was cross-examined, he stated that the income was of the deceased and from the said income she used to take care of the family and spent money on the family. The suggestion given by the respondent that the returns were filed only for the purpose of adjusting the income of the deponent was denied. The deponent also admitted that the documents, from which the returns have been prepared, have not been produced as evidence. 13. Having considered the documentary evidence i.e. the returns of the income as well as the statement of the claimant, it cannot be said that the returns, which were filed way back in the year 2004-05 upto the year 2008-09 i.e. before the death of the deceased, were merely make believe documents. As already noticed, the same were filed at the relevant time i.e. the documents are contemporary, there is no reason to disbelieve the said documents and the income of the deceased arising out of business. 14. In view thereof, the Tribunal was not justified in ignoring the returns and/or the income arising out of the business by the deceased. The income indicated in the return for the assessment year 2007-08, which pertained to the financial year 2006-07 has been Rs. 96,000/-, which indicates a steep rise from the previous year, wherein, the same was Rs. 72,000/- only and in the year previous to that was Rs. 60,000/- only. 15. In view of the above, the income from business in so far as the deceased was concerned, is taken at Rs. 6,000/- per month. Out of the said amount, ?rd amount deserves to be deducted towards her personal expenses and to that extent the award passed by the Tribunal deserve to be modified. 16. So far as the claim for grant of compensation towards loss of consortium and loss of love and affection to the appellants is concerned, learned counsel for the respondent is justified in submitting that the Tribunal has specifically noticed while awarding the amount @ Rs. 3,000/- that the same pertains to the loss of consortium, love and affection and services of the deceased and, therefore, no amount needs to be granted separately under the said heads. 17. 3,000/- that the same pertains to the loss of consortium, love and affection and services of the deceased and, therefore, no amount needs to be granted separately under the said heads. 17. In view of the above discussion, the appellants would be entitled to further sum of Rs. 4,000 x 12 x 13 = 6,24,000/-. The appellants would also be entitled to interest @ 7% per annum on the said amount from the date of application i.e. 23.01.2009. The amount of Rs. 6,24,000/- be disbursed among the appellants along with interest as under:- Prakash Chandra Rs. 3,00,000/- Prateemk Pagaria Rs. 1,08,000/- Prashant Pagaria Rs. 1,08,000/- Ms. Shefali Pagaria Rs. 1,08,000/- 18. The amount be paid in the saving bank accounts of the appellants. In view of the above discussion, the appeal is partly allowed. The award passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent indicated hereinbefore. The respondent Insurance Company is directed to make payment of amount of compensation within a period of six weeks from the date of judgment.