Court clarified compensation must reflect true income including managerial losses and valid income sources, irrespective of initial pleading deficiencies.

JUDGMENT :

REKHA BORANA, J.

1. Learned counsel Mr. Jagdish Vyas has put in appearance for the Insurance Company in S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.2178/2024 and counsel Mr. S.S. Gour with counsel Mr. Amit Saran has put in appearance for the claimants in S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.1818/2024. Service on the other respondents in both the appeals, being the driver and owner of the vehicle in question, is dispensed with as the liability is not under challenge in the present appeals.

2. The present appeals have been filed against the Judgment and Award dated 19.04.2024 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal First, Jodhpur in MAC Case No.257/2021 (NCV No.257/2021) whereby award for an amount of Rs.49,45,805/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition i.e. 01.02.2021, has been passed in favour of the claimants.

3. S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1818/2024 has been filed by the Insurance Company laying a challenge to the quantum of Award and S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.2178/2024 has been filed by the claimants for enhancement of the compensation amount awarded vide the impugned award.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company raised the following grounds:

i) The learned Tribunal erred in considering the income from the shop also while computing the loss of income whereas it was admitted on record that the shop of the deceased was still running and hence, the loss, if any, could be computed only to the extent of managerial loss. In support of his submission counsel relied upon the Apex Court judgment in New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Yogesh Devi Ors. ; (2012) 3 SCC 613 .

ii) In the claim petition it was nowhere pleaded by the claimants that the deceased was earning income as a priest too. In absence of any such pleading, the income as reflected in the Income Tax Returns (ITRs) as a priest could not have been taken into consideration.

iii) Even otherwise the income as a priest as reflected in the ITRs was shown to be from other sources and not from any business or profession therefore too, the said income could not have been termed to an income derived from any business/profession and hence, could not have been taken into consideration.

Further, the said income as a priest could not have been termed to be a regular source of income and therefore too, could not be considered.

iv) The learned Tribunal erred in considering the complete income as reflected in the ITR to be a loss of income without deducting the income as derived from interest on saving accounts of the deceased. The amount received as interest on bank deposits could not be computed to be a loss of income.

v) The learned Tribunal erred in deducting 1/4th of income qua personal expenses of the deceased considering the number of dependents/claimants to be 4 whereas as was admitted on record, the father of the deceased was not his dependent, being an earning member. The deduction qua personal expenses ought to be 1/3rd. In support of his submission counsel relied upon the Apex Court judgment in Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation.; (2009) 6 SCC 121 .

5. Per contra learned counsel for the claimants while praying for enhancement of the compensation amount argued that ITR qua the assessment year of 2020-21 (Exhibit-25) was wrongly not relied upon by the learned Tribunal only on the count of the same having been filed after the death of the deceased. The deceased expired in the month of December 2021 and hence, the income as reflected in the ITR of 2020-2021 clearly comprised his income from the month of April to December, 2021 too. The s