Back
2016 Supreme(P&H) 1301
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
SURINDER GUPTA, J.
Saroj and another – Appellants
Versus
Udmi Ram and others – Respondents
FAO No. 2701 of 2013 & 1736 of 2014 (O&M)
Decided On : 08-08-2016
For the Appellant :Mr. Gopal Sharma, Advocate, Mr. J.P. Sharma, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. J.P. Sharma, Advocate, Mr. Gopal Sharma, Advocate, Mr. R.C. Kapoor, Advocate
Headnote:
Compensation - Motor Vehicle Accident - Income Tax Act, 1961 - Sarla Verma and ors. vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 - Rajesh and others vs. Rajbir Singh and others, 2013 (9) SCC 54 - Munna Lal Jain and others vs. Vipin Kumar Sharma and others, 2015 (3) RCR (Civil) 447 - National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pushpa and others, 2015 (9) SCC 166 - Reeta Mahajan and others vs. Hans Raj and others, 2016 (3) PLR 528
Fact of the Case:
The claimants sought enhancement of compensation awarded for the death of the deceased in a motor vehicle accident. The Tribunal had awarded Rs.12,30,060 as compensation, which the claimants appealed against.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Tribunal had erred in calculating the deceased's income and the multiplier for dependency. It also held that the compensation for loss of consortium was on the lower side and additional compensation should be awarded for loss of love and affection care and guidance. The court reassessed the compensation to Rs.28,45,000 and ordered interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition.
Issues: Calculation of compensation, application of multiplier, adequacy of compensation for loss of consortium and additional compensation for loss of love and affection care and guidance.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the Income Tax Act, 1961 and various legal precedents to reassess the compensation. It emphasized the need to consider future prospects, inflationary trends, and the deceased's potential for additional income. The court also considered the welfare of the minor claimant in depositing the compensation.
Final Decision: The appeals were accepted, and the compensation was enhanced to Rs.28,45,000 with interest at 7.5% per annum. The distribution of the enhanced compensation among the claimants was specified, and the insurer of the offending vehicle was directed to deposit the share of claimants-appellants in their bank accounts or pay the same through demand drafts.
Surinder Gupta, J.
Above-captioned appeals have been taken up together for disposal by this common judgment as these arise out of the same award dated 07.02.2013 passed by Motor Accident Claimants Tribunal, Narnaul (later referred to as ‘the Tribunal’) and have been filed by different set of claimants in same claim petition.
2. To avoid repetition, the facts are being extracted from FAO No. 2701 of 2013.
3. Claimants have filed appeals seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Narnaul (later referred to as ‘the Tribunal’) for death of Tarun Kumar (later referred to as ‘the deceased’) husband of claimant-appellant no. 1, father of claimant-appellant no. 2 and son of claimants-respondents no. 4 and 5 (appellants in FAO No. 1736 of 2014), in a motor vehicle accident with truck bearing registration no. HR-55-E-5161 (later referred to as ‘the offending vehicle’).
4. Case of claimants, in brief, is that on 28.01.2010, the deceased was traveling in Scorpio along with Mukesh, Surender, Satyender, Sudhir etc., which was hit by the offending vehicle resulting in injuries to other occupants and death of Tarun Kumar (deceased) at the spot.
5. As claimants-appellants are seeking enhancement of compensation, detailed facts of the case are being skipped for the sake of brevity.
6. The Tribunal allowed compensation of Rs.12,30,060/-, which was computed as follows:-
| Sr. No. | Heads | Calculation |
| (i) | Name of the deceased | Tarun Kumar |
| (ii) | Age of the deceased | 24 years |
| (iii) | Income of the deceased | Rs.10000 per month |
| (iv) | 1/3rd of (iii) deducted towards personal expenses | (Rs.10000-Rs.3333) = Rs.6667 |
| (v) | Amount of dependency after applying the multiplier of 15 | (Rs.6667x12x15)=Rs.1200060 |
| (vi) | Loss of consortium | Rs.10000 |
| (vii) | Funeral expenses | Rs.20000 |
| Total | Rs.1230060 | |
4. Against the award wife and minor child of the deceased filed separate appeal bearing FAO No. 2701 of 2013 while parents of the deceased filed appeal bearing FAO No. 1736 of 2014.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper-book and record of the Tribunal with their assistance.
6. Learned counsel for appellants has argued that income tax return of the deceased for the financial year 2007-2008 (Ex. P-18) shows his gross income as Rs.1,20,420/-. In the next return for the financial year 2008-2009, income of the deceased after deduction under Chapter VI-A is mentioned as 1,39,960/- but the Tribunal has taken his income as Rs.10,000/- per month i.e. Rs.1,20,000/- per annum, which is against the documentary evidence on record. The Tribunal relied on the statement of PW-7 Jagdev, owner of Satyam Steel Industries, Vatva, Ahmedabad with whom the deceased was employed. He has stated that as per his record, salary of the deceased was Rs.10,100/- per month. He has further stated that the deceased was also doing side business and was earning Rs.4000/- to Rs.5000/- per month. In income tax return, which was filed on 30.10.2009 with Income Tax Authorities i.e. much prior to the date of incident, income of Rs.57,680/- has been shown from business/profession of the deceased, as such, there was no reason for the Tribunal either to reject part statement of PW-7 Jagdev or to ignore income of the deceased as mentioned in income tax return for the financial year 2008-2009. The multiplier as applied by the Tribunal while computing amount of dependency is 15 while as per observation of Apex Court in Sarla Verma and ors. vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, (2009) 6 SCC 121, it should be 18. The Tribunal has allowed compensation for loss of consortium as Rs.10,000/-, which is on lower side and should be Rs.1 lac as per observation of Apex Court in Rajesh and others vs. Rajbir Singh and others, 2013 (9) SCC 54. No compensation was allowed to minor child
