Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 2827 (RAJ)

Narayan Das Ji Bansal v. Rajesh Kumar Jat

2017-12-19

BANWARI LAL SHARMA

body2017
JUDGMENT Banwari Lal Sharma, J. - The aforesaid both the appeals are preferred under Section 173 of M.V. Act by the appellants-claimants dissatisfying from the impugned judgment and award dated 25.01.2006 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional District and Sessions Judge) (Fast Track) No. 2, Beawar in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 204/2005 (Old No. 233/2003) and Motor Accident Claim Case No. 205/2005 (Old No. 232/2003) where by learned tribunal while partly allowing the claim petitions awarded Rs. 3,19,000/- and Rs. 6,23,000/- respectively in favour of appellants-claimants and against respondent No. 1 to 3 jointly and severely. 2. The brief facts giving rise to these appeals are that appellants-claimants filed two separate claim petitions under Section 166 of M.V. Act, 1988 claiming compensation for the loss suffered by them due to the death of Smt. Pushpa Devi and Nand Kishore in the road accident which occurred on 10.03.2003, when deceased Smt. Pushpa Devi and Nand Kishore along with their family members were travelling in the Indigo Car No. RJ-01-1C-1264 and were going to Jeen Mata. When they reached on the bye-pass of Reengus suddenly respondent No.-1, who was driving the car in rash and negligent manner and in high speed car resulted into over turned, as a result thereof Smt. Pushpa Devi and Nand Kishore sustained serious injuries and succumbed to the injuries. The said accident occurred due to the sole negligence of respondent No. 1 who was the driver of the car and at the relevant time respondent No. 2 and 3 were the owner and insurer of the offending car. 3. Respondent No.-3 Insurance Company filed a written reply of the claim petitions wherein she denied all the allegations in want of knowledge and pleaded that the driver of car was not having valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident and prayed for rejection of the claim petitions. 4. Respondent No. 1-driver pleaded ex-party and respondent No.-2 owner of the car failed to submit any reply to the claim petitions. 5. After hearing, learned tribunal partly allowed the claim petitions in aforesaid terms. 6. Dissatisfying from the award amount, appellants-claimants preferred these misc. appeals before this Court under Section 173 of M.V. Act for enhancement of the award amount. 7. Mr. J.P. Gupta learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellants in S.B. Civil Misc. 5. After hearing, learned tribunal partly allowed the claim petitions in aforesaid terms. 6. Dissatisfying from the award amount, appellants-claimants preferred these misc. appeals before this Court under Section 173 of M.V. Act for enhancement of the award amount. 7. Mr. J.P. Gupta learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellants in S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1337/2006 submits that deceased Pushpa Devi was working as sales executive in Ambika Minerals, Bhilwara and was getting Rs. 4,000/- per month as salary and appellants-claimants submitted her income-tax returns Exhibit-13, 14 and 15 before the tribunal and proved them. Still, learned tribunal without considering the aforesaid income-tax returns in right perspective, income of deceased was considered only Rs. 3,000/- per month as salary. While as per income-tax return Exhibit-14 which was submitted by deceased Pushpa Devi in her life time, according to it her annual income was Rs. 44,280/-. Further the age of deceased Pushpa Devi was 48 years, still future prospects were also not considered and in conventional heads very meager amount is awarded, therefore adequate amount may be awarded. 8. In S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1348/2006, Mr. J.P. Gupta learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellants submits that though there are income-tax returns of deceased Nand Kishore on record, still without considering the income-tax returns learned tribunal considered the income of deceased only Rs. 7,000/- per month without any basis and in other conventional heads very meager amount is awarded and since there are four dependents of deceased, therefore as per Sarla Verma And Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation And Another reported in AIR 2009 SC 3104 , deduction as personal expenses of deceased should be only 1 A while learned tribunal deducted l A, therefore considering all these facts, these appeals may be allowed and adequate award may be awarded to appellants-claimants. 9. Per contra in S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1337/2006, Mr. Ravindra Pal Singh learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. J.K. Singhi learned counsel for respondent No.- 3 Insurance Company submits that no income-tax return was submitted by the deceased in her life time, the return was submitted after the death of deceased-Pushpa Devi, therefore same cannot be considered. 10. He also supported the impugned judgment and award and prayed that the appeal may be dismissed. 11. In S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1348/2006, Mr. Akhilesh Soni learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. 10. He also supported the impugned judgment and award and prayed that the appeal may be dismissed. 11. In S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1348/2006, Mr. Akhilesh Soni learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. Vizzy Agarwal learned counsel for respondent No.-3 Insurance Company supported the impugned judgment and submitted that since there was no fix income of deceased Nand Kishore and appellants-claimants failed to submit salary certificate, appointment letter and other salary documents, in absence thereof merely on the basis of income-tax returns compensation should not be awarded. 12. He further submits that witnesses examined by the claimants who are themselves claimants in their respective statements clearly stated that they do not know where the deceased was working, where he was living, what was his income and who was his employer, therefore in absence thereof the income-tax returns cannot be considered, therefore the appeal may be dismissed. 13. I have considered the submissions made at Bar. 14. So far as in S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1337/2006, the age of deceased Pushpa Devi was decided as 48 years by the tribunal which is not disputed. 15. In the claim petition, her monthly income is pleaded as Rs. 4,000/- per month and it is pleaded that she was marketing executive in Ambika Minerals, Bhilwara. 16. From the perusal of Exhibit- 13, income-tax return of deceased Pushpa Devi which is for the assessment year 1999-2000 wherein the income of deceased is shown from business or profession as Rs. 35,167/- per annum and as per Exhibit-14, the income of deceased is shown from business or profession as Rs. 44,280/-, this return is submitted on 29.11.2001. Thereafter, for the year 2001-2002, the income was shown in Exhibit-15 as Rs. 42,216/-, therefore the last return submitted by the deceased in her life time is Exhibit-15 wherein her income from business or profession is shown as Rs. 42,216/- per annum. As such, the income is treated as Rs. 42,216/- per annum. 17. Since, her age is taken as 48 years, therefore as per Sarla Verma And Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation And Another (supra) the multiplier applicable in this matter is 13. Since, there are father-in-law and mother-in-law of deceased are not considered as dependents, therefore dependents are only two children. 42,216/- per annum. 17. Since, her age is taken as 48 years, therefore as per Sarla Verma And Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation And Another (supra) the multiplier applicable in this matter is 13. Since, there are father-in-law and mother-in-law of deceased are not considered as dependents, therefore dependents are only two children. As such, according to Sarla Verma And Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation And Another (supra) after deducting V as personal living expenditure of deceased, the loss of income per annum comes to Rs. 42,216 - 14,072 = 28,144 x 13 = Rs. 3,65,872/-. 18. Thereafter, in view of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi And Ors., SLP (Civil) No. 25590/2014 decided by the larger Bench of Hon''ble Supreme Court on 31.10.2017, 25% of the aforesaid income which comes out to Rs. 91,468/-, therefore appellants are also entitled for future prospects, as such total loss of income comes to Rs. 4,57,340/-. 19. In conventional heads, appellants who are son and daughter of deceased are entitled for Rs. 20,000/- against loss of love and affection from their mother, Rs. 15,000/- for expenditure of last rites and Rs. 15,000/- for loss of estate respectively are also admissible in favour of the appellants-claimants. 20. As such, the total amount comes out as Rs. 5,07,340/- while learned tribunal awarded only Rs. 3,19,000/-, therefore appellants-claimants are also entitled to get the remaining aforesaid difference amount i.e. Rs. 1,88,340/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum for the date of filing of application i.e. 29.04.2003. Accordingly, S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1337/2006 is partly allowed. 21. So far as, S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1348/2006 is concerned, regarding income of deceased Nand Kishore three documents are produced by the appellants-claimants, Exhibit-10 income-tax return which relates to assessment year 2000-2001 wherein income of deceased is shown as Rs. 1,27,630/- per annum, in Exhibit-11, the income of deceased for the assessment year 2001-2002 is shown as Rs. 1,34,360/-/-, in Exhibit-12 which is for assessment year 2002-2003, the income of deceased is shown as Rs. 1,24,075/-. 22. The date of incident is 10.03.2003, accordingly the last return was submitted Exhibit-12 on 28.02.2003 wherein the income of deceased was shown as Rs. 1,24,075/-, out of which deceased paid Rs. 13,191/- as income-tax, after deducting the income-tax so paid, the total income of deceased comes to Rs. 1,24,075 - 13,191 = Rs. 1,10,884/-. 23. 1,24,075/-. 22. The date of incident is 10.03.2003, accordingly the last return was submitted Exhibit-12 on 28.02.2003 wherein the income of deceased was shown as Rs. 1,24,075/-, out of which deceased paid Rs. 13,191/- as income-tax, after deducting the income-tax so paid, the total income of deceased comes to Rs. 1,24,075 - 13,191 = Rs. 1,10,884/-. 23. Since, the age of deceased is considered by learned tribunal as 53 years, according to National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi And Ors., SLP (Civil) No. 25590/2014 decided by the larger Bench of Hon''ble Supreme Court on 31.10.2017, after considering 10% as future prospects of the aforesaid income which comes to Rs. 11,088/-. 24. As such, the total income comes to Rs. 1,10,884 + 11,088 = 1,21,972/-. 25. Since, there are four dependents of deceased, therefore according to Sarla Verma And Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation And Another reported in AIR 2009 SC 3104 , after deducting / of the aforesaid amount 1,21,972 - 30,493 = 91,479/- is the annual loss of income to deceased. After applying the multiplier of 11 according to Sarla Verma And Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation And Another (supra), the total loss of income comes to Rs. 10,06,269/-. 26. Apart from this, appellants are also entitled for loss of love and affection, regards and help from the deceased Rs. 20,000/-, Rs. 15,000/- for loss of estate and Rs. 15,000/- for expenditure of last rites respectively are also admissible in favour of the appellants-claimants. 27. As such, the total amount comes out as Rs. 10,56,269/- while learned tribunal awarded only Rs. 6,23,000/-, therefore appellants-claimants are also entitled to get the remaining aforesaid difference amount i.e. Rs. 4,33,269/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum for the date of filing of petition i.e. 29.04.2003. Accordingly, this misc. appeal is also partly allowed. 28. Respondent-Insurance Company is directed to deposit the aforesaid difference amount in both the appeals within eight weeks from today, failing which interest shall be payable at the rate of 9% from the date of this judgment. Record of the tribunal be returned with the copy of the judgment forthwith.