SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Del) 5751

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Navin Chawla, J.
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Reena Raghav & Ors. - Respondents
MAC.APP. 535 of 2023
Decided On : 30-11-2023

Advocates appeared:
Mr. Pradeep Gaur, Advocate & Ms. Sweta Sinha, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr.Anshuman Bal, Advocate for R1 to 4.

IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on income tax returns, legal provisions of the Evidence Act, and legal precedents to determine compensation in motor accident cases.

Headnote:

Income Tax - Compensation Determination - K. Ramya v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1338; Laxmibai (dead) Through LRs. & Anr. v. Bhagwantbuva (dead) Through LRs. & Ors., (2013) 4 SCC 97; National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi & Ors., (2017) 16 SCC 680; Erudhaya Priya v. State Express Transport Corporation Ltd., 2020 SCC OnLine SC 601 - 2018-19 IT Returns, Income from Other Sources, Tax Deduction, Future Prospects, Rate of Interest - Sections 138 and 146 of the Evidence Act, 1872, Income Tax Act

Fact of the Case:

The appeal challenged the Award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal regarding compensation for a fatal accident caused by a bus. The appellant disputed the determination of loss of dependency, income tax deductions, future prospects, and the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal.

Finding of the Court:

The court rejected the challenges to the Impugned Award, upholding the Tribunal's determination of loss of dependency, income tax deductions, future prospects, and the rate of interest. The appellant was directed to deposit the modified compensation amount with interest within four weeks.

Issues: Determination of loss of dependency, income tax deductions, future prospects, and rate of interest.

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the Income Tax Returns, Sections 138 and 146 of the Evidence Act, 1872, and various legal precedents to uphold the Tribunal's decision on compensation determination.

Final Decision: The appeal partly succeeded, and the application was disposed of as infructuous. The appellant was exempted from depositing the statutory amount, and there was no order as to cost.

JUDGMENT

Navin Chawla, J. (Oral) -

CM APPL. 61647/2023 (Exemption)

1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

CM APPL. 61648/2023

2. For the reasons stated in the application, the delay of 26 days in filing the appeal stands condoned.

3. The application is disposed of.

MAC.APP. 535/2023 & CM APPL. 61646/2023

4. The present appeal has been filed challenging the Award dated 07.07.2023 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Impugned Award') passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (South-East District), Saket Courts, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') in MACT Case No.451/2019, titled as Reena Raghav & Ors. v. Momin & Ors.

5. It was the case of the respondent nos.1 to 4 herein/ claimants before the learned Tribunal, that on 07.05.2019 at about 8 am, the deceased Sumeet Raghav along with his son Sanidhya Raghav was going on a scooty. When he reached Chowki Vardhmanpuram near Manandham Mandir, a bus bearing registration no. UP-15DT-6742 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Offending Vehicle') came from behind at a very high speed and in a rash and negligent manner hit the scooty of the deceased, as a result of which, both the riders of the Scooty fell down on the road and received serious injuries. The deceased was removed to the Yashoda Hospital, Ghaziabad, where he died on 09.05.2019 due to the injuries received in the accident.

6. The learned Tribunal, on appreciation of the evidence led before it, has held that the accident in question has been caused by the Offending Vehicle being driven in a rash and negligent manner, resulting in the death of the deceased. As far as the compensation is concerned, the learned Tribunal, for the purposes of determining the loss of dependency, based on the Income Tax Returns (in short, 'ITR') of the deceased for the Assessment Year 2018-19 has held that the income of the deceased was Rs.5,85,860/-.

7. The first challenge of the appellant to the Impugned Award is on the above determination.

INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES:

8. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the ITR of the deceased for the Assessment Year 2018-19 shows the income from 'Business & Profession' as Rs.4,65,500/-. It further shows the 'Income from Other Sources' as Rs.1,20,360/-. He submits that the 'income from other sources' cannot be considered for the purpose of determination of the loss of dependency as such income would survive the death of the deceased. He submits that only the income from 'Business & Profession' can be considered for the purposes of determining the loss of dependency.

9. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant.

10. He has not been able to show to this Court if the witnesses of the respondent nos.1 to 4 herein, that is, the wife of the deceased (PW1) and Officer from the Income Tax Department (PW2) were cross-examined on the nature of the source of the 'income from other sources'. In the absence of any such cross-examination, the respondent nos.1 to 4 have been denied an opportunity to explain the source from which such income is earned and whether it would survive the death of the deceased.

11. Even otherwise, the Supreme Court in K. Ramya v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1338, has held that even the income earned from bank interest and remaining investments must be included in the income of the deceased. It was further held that even for the income from House Property and Agricultural land, some percentage thereof has to be attributed towards individual's managerial skills; the value of managerial skills shall depend upon factual consideration. In the present case, for lack of cross-examination, the respondent no. 1 to 4 got no opportunity to explain the source of such income and how much of the same could be attributed to the managerial skills of the deceased and also whether the same continues to be earned and realised by the

      Click Here to Read the rest of this document
      1
      2
      3
      4
      5
      6
      7
      8
      9
      10
      11
      SupremeToday Portrait Ad
      supreme today icon
      logo-black

      An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

      Please visit our Training & Support
      Center or Contact Us for assistance

      qr

      Scan Me!

      India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

      For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

      whatsapp-icon Back to top