Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 878 (JHR)

Indrashan Devi v. Rana Arun Kumar Singh

2021-10-18

ANANDA SEN

body2021
JUDGMENT : ANANDA SEN, J. 1. Heard both the parties. 2. The appellants were the claimants before the Tribunal. They have filed this appeal praying for enhancement of the compensation amount awarded vide award dated 26.11.2018 passed by Principal District Judge cum MVACT, Bokaro in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 37 of 2016. 3. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that the Tribunal had assessed the income of the deceased to be Rs. 13,300/- per month which is the salary the deceased was drawing from his employer. He submits that the deceased was also earning Rs. 10,000/- per month from transport business which has not been considered by the Tribunal while assessing the amount of compensation. He submits that the income tax returns for the year 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2014-15, 2015-16 were filed by the claimants to show the exact income of the deceased. He submits that the income tax return having statutory force should have been considered by the Tribunal. He further submits that in terms of the Judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 consortium has not been awarded. He submits that only Rs. 30,000/- under conventional head has been awarded in place of Rs. 70,000/-. Lastly, he submits that interest from the date of filing of this application has not been granted. It is the submission of the claimants that the reason for not granting interest has also not been recorded in the impugned order. These are the only grounds raised by the appellants in this appeal during hearing wherein they have sought to enhance the amount of compensation. 4. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company submits that the Tribunal has correctly assessed the income of the deceased considering the salary certificate. He submits that the appellants have failed to produce any document to suggest that deceased was having a business of transportation. He submits that in absence of any cogent evidence that the appellant was having a business of transportation, the Tribunal correctly assessed the income of the deceased as Rs. 13,300/- per month which is his salary. He submits that the appellants have failed to produce any document to suggest that deceased was having a business of transportation. He submits that in absence of any cogent evidence that the appellant was having a business of transportation, the Tribunal correctly assessed the income of the deceased as Rs. 13,300/- per month which is his salary. On the issue of interest learned counsel submitted that court below felt it proper not to grant any interest from the date of application and there are no good ground available to the appellants to challenge the same. So far as compensation under the conventional head is concerned, he submits that the Judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 would govern this issue. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and respondent. After going through the award and the lower court record, I find that the fact of accident and the involvement of the offending vehicle bearing Registration No. JH-09-Z-5705 is not disputed. It is also not disputed that the said vehicle was duly insured with the National Insurance Company Ltd. and the policy was subsisting on the date of the accident. It is also not disputed that there was no violation of the terms and condition of policy. The age of the deceased is also not disputed nor is the dependency. The parties also accepted that the multiplier has been correctly applied. 6. In view of the aforesaid admitted facts the only dispute which remains is, what would be the correct income of the deceased. The appellants have exhibited several documents to prove the income. It is the case of the claimants that the deceased was a manager in Sumangal Motors and was earning a salary of Rs. 13,000 to 13,300/- per month. The salary slip for the month of January 2016 is marked as exhibit 6 which shows that the deceased was getting Rs. 13,300/- per month and Rs. 403 was deducted from the aforesaid amount as PPF. Be it noted that the accident had taken place on 11/12 February, 2016. Further the appellants have brought on record the copies of the income tax return for the assessment year 2011-12, 2012-13, 2014-15, 2015-16. The bank pass-book has also been exhibited. These returns were marked as exhibit 8, 9, 10, 11, 12. Be it noted that the accident had taken place on 11/12 February, 2016. Further the appellants have brought on record the copies of the income tax return for the assessment year 2011-12, 2012-13, 2014-15, 2015-16. The bank pass-book has also been exhibited. These returns were marked as exhibit 8, 9, 10, 11, 12. The income tax returns of the year 2010-11 (Exhibit 8) shows the annual income of the deceased to be Rs. 1,59,900. Similarly for the assessment year 2011-12 the income is Rs. 1,62,100, for 2012-13 it is Rs. 1,93,304, for 2014-15 it is Rs. 2,16,650 and for 2015-16 it is Rs. 2,54,180. It is the case of the appellants that the deceased was earning the aforesaid amount through salary as he was a manager in Sumangal Motor and was also earning a sum of Rs. 10,000/- per month from the business of transport. The Tribunal disbelieved the case of the claimants that the deceased was involved in transport business on the ground that the claimants did not produce any documentary evidence in proof of the same. The Tribunal, thus, had only considered the salary certificate. Now before this Court there are two documents showing the income of the deceased: 1. Salary Certificate 2. Income Tax Returns 7. It is the case of the claimants that the deceased was earring some extra income by way of some transport business. Though, the appellants failed to prove the same by any documents yet the income tax return cannot be ignored. The annual income of the deceased will come to Rs. 1,59,900/- if his salaried income per month is calculated as Rs. 13,300/- which has been accepted by the Tribunal. When I go through the Income tax return, I find that the return shows much higher income than the salaried income. The income as per the income tax returns shows a gradual increase of income from assessment year 2010-11 onwards. This clearly suggests that the deceased was not only dependent of the salaried income but had some income from the other sources also. The income shown in the assessment year 2014-15 of the deceased as Rs. 2,16,650/-. These returns were filed immediately after the death of the deceased. The return of 2014-15 and 2015-16 uploaded on the same date that is immediately after 2016 i.e. after the death of the deceased. The income shown in the assessment year 2014-15 of the deceased as Rs. 2,16,650/-. These returns were filed immediately after the death of the deceased. The return of 2014-15 and 2015-16 uploaded on the same date that is immediately after 2016 i.e. after the death of the deceased. The return filed in the year 2015-16 was for annual income of Rs. 2,54,180/-. Since both the returns were electronically uploaded on 10.03.2016 i.e. immediately after the death of the deceased, it would be proper to consider the return of the year 2014-15, which shows a lesser income than that of assessment year 2015-16 for the purpose of assessing the income of the deceased. Non consideration of these ITRs by the Tribunal which were filed, was not proper. The Tribunal should have considered the ITRs, whose authenticity cannot be doubted. Further when income tax return shows that the deceased was earning more than his salary, for the purpose of assessing compensation, the income tax return should have been preferred over the salary certificate. Thus, for assessing compensation, income of the deceased is taken to be Rs. 2,16,650/-. 8. The Tribunal has not awarded consortium in this case. Two of the claimants are the parents of the deceased. As per the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of New India Assurance Company Ltd. vs. Somwati and Others, (2020) 9 SCC 644 claimants are entitled to get the Filial consortium. Thus the claimants are entitled to receive further amount of Rs. 40,000/- on account of Filial consortium, as under conventional head total amount of Rs. 70,000/- has to be paid as per the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 . 9. It is the case of the claimants that no interest has been awarded by the Tribunal. In terms of Section 171 the claimants are entitled to receive interest. No reason has been assigned in the award as to why interest has been refused. In this case, when I go through the order sheet I find that the case was filed on 20.04.2016. The case was admitted on 18.05.2016 and notices were ordered to be issued. Notices were filed within time and the same was issued also. No reason has been assigned in the award as to why interest has been refused. In this case, when I go through the order sheet I find that the case was filed on 20.04.2016. The case was admitted on 18.05.2016 and notices were ordered to be issued. Notices were filed within time and the same was issued also. The opposite parties appeared in this case and on 16.12.2016 the Order under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicle Act was passed by the Tribunal. The Insurance Company deposited the cheque of Rs. 50,000/- on 16.03.2017, thereafter the case proceeded. The claimants started adducing evidence from 15.07.2017. On 07.09.2017 the matter was referred by the Tribunal for mediation. The claimant’s close their evidence on 23.02.2018 and ultimately award was delivered on 26.11.2018. After going through the award and the order sheet, I find that there was no delay cause by the claimants to debarred them from receiving the interest. Thus, this Court feels that 7% interest per annum from the date of filing of the claim application before the Tribunal should be awarded to the claimants. Now on basis of what has been held above, if the compensation is reassessed it will be as follows: Rs. 2,16,650/- x 17 (multiplier) = Rs. 36,83,050/- Rs. 36,83,050 - 50% (deduction as deceased was bachelor) = Rs. 18,41,525/- Rs. 18,41,525 + 40% (future prospect) = Rs. 25,78,135/- Rs. 25,78,135 + Rs. 70,000/- (Conventional Head) = (Total) Rs. 26,48,135/- Just compensation in this Case is Rs. 26,48,135/- 10. The said amount will carry an interest at the rate of 7% per annum from 2016 till the date amount is disbursed. Out of the said amount Rs. 50,000/- paid under Section 140 should be deducted. 11. The Insurance Company is directed to calculate the amount of interest and pay the balance amount to the claimants within two months from today. This appeal is allowed accordingly.