Back
2017 Supreme(P&H) 2254
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajbir Sehrawat
FAO No. 4695 of 2013
Smt. Lalita Rani & Ors.
v.
Vishwajit Singh Minhas & Anr.
{Decided on 22/11/2017}
For the Petitioner:Mr. Satbir Singh Katnoria, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate.
Accident--Future Prospects--Even the notional basis has to be treated as the established income for grant and calculation of benefit of future prospects.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, S.166--Accident--Future Prospects--Notional Income--Even the income of the deceased assessed by the Tribunal on so called notional basis has to be treated as the established income for grant and calculation of benefit of future prospects. (Para 15)
The benefit of future prospects cannot be denied on the ground that the Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased on notional basis and that the claimants has not proved, by documentary evidence, the exact figure of that notional income. Once an income in assessed by the Tribunal for the purpose of calculation of the compensation then it cannot be said that the same income is not the established income for the purpose of grant or calculation of future prospects. Although, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has used the word ‘established income’ in its judgment rendered in the case of National Insurance Company Limited (supra), however, the Hon’ble Court itself has explained the meaning of ‘established income’ to mean ‘an income which is minus the income tax’. Therefore, this shows that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has used the word ‘established income’ only to clarify that the income of the deceased, if it exceeds the taxable limit would be taken after the deduction of the applicable taxes. Nothing more can be read in the word “established income” than what has already been clarified by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
(B) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, S.166--Accident--Income--Proof of--Undocumented cash salary--In such a situation the poor person, who is compelled to receive the undocumented cash salary or who being self-employed is not earning enough to reach the taxable height of income, cannot be blamed for non-documentation of the exact figure of his income--In such a situation, the claimants can prove the employment or self employment of the deceased even by the oral evidence and through oral evidence can lay down a factual basis for an inference qua the particular figure of the income of the deceased. (Para 14)
(C) Constitution of India, 1950, Act 141--Precedent--Judgment of Constitutional Court is a precedent only to the extent it clearly expresses it to be so--It is never a precedence qua that what could be logically deduced from the judgment. (Para 13)
Still further the judgment of a Court is not to be interpreted like a statue; so as to make an attempt to assign meaning to each and every word used in the judgment as part of judgment writing skills. No attempt can be made to find out the intention or to impute intention to the Court which writes a judgment; beyond what is expressly written or clarified by the Court. Anything more than that would be governed by the relevant statutory law.
Mr. Rajbir Sehrawat, J.(Oral):- This is an appeal filed by the claimants challenging the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’) on the ground of insufficiency of compensation awarded to them; on account of death of Ashok Kumar.
2. The facts of the case, as mentioned in the award of the Tribunal, are that on 01.08.2009, Ashok Kumar was pillion riding a scooter bearing Registration No. CHT-114; driven by Mahender Singh Jatt. They were going to Manimajra after closing their shops situated in Sector 8-B, Chandigarh. When they reached on the road dividing Sectors 7 and 8 and turned their scooter towards left side, the car bearing Registration No. HP- 33-B-3004(hereinafter referred as ‘offending vehicle’), driven by respondent No. 1 rashly and negligently, came from back side, i.e., from the Madhya Marg, Chandigarh and hit the scooter. As a result thereof, the persons on the scooter fell on the road and received head injury along with other multiple injuries. They were taken to the PGI, Chandigarh. However, Ashok Kumar succumbed to the injuries at PGI, Chandigarh on 5.8.2009. In view of this, the claimants filed a claim petition; claiming the negligence on the part of respondent No. 1. It was pleaded that deceased Ashok Kumar was 50 years of age. He was having a shop of vegetable in Sector 8, Chandigarh. His income was claimed to be Rs. 20,000/- per month. Accordingly, the compensation, was claimed by the claimants, who are the widow, two daughters and one son of deceased Ashok Kumar.
3. Upon notice, the driver-cum-owner of the offending vehicle/ respondent No. 1 filed written statement pleading that no accident was caused by him. It was further denied that the offending car was being driven in a rash and negligent manner. Respondent No. 2 in the claim petition, the Insurance Company, also filed a separate written statement taking routine preliminary objection and claiming that the driver of the offending car was not holding a valid driving license at the time of accident. On merit, it was further pleaded that no accident, as alleged, had taken place. Still further, it was claimed that no intimation regarding the accident was given to the Insurance Company.
4. Parties led their evidence.
5. After hearing the parties, the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs. 7,12,000/- as total compensation. To arrive at this figure, the Tribunal assessed the notional income of the deceased at Rs. 6,000/- per month. The Tribunal held that though it has come on record that the deceased was a licensed vegetable vendor; having a permanent shop in Sector 8, Chandigarh; and his wife has deposed that the deceased was earning Rs. 20,000/- per month, however, no documentary evidence has been led to prove that the deceased was earning Rs. 20,000/- per month. Therefore, the Tribunal; taking into consideration the facts and circumstances assessed the income of the deceased to be Rs. 6,000/- per month. Deduction of 1/4th was applied to it, as personal expenses. Annual dependency was thus assessed to be Rs. 54,000/-. Keeping in view the age of the deceased, multiplier of 13 was applied. Hence the total loss of dependency of Rs. 7,02,000/- was assessed. Besides this, Rs. 5,000/- was added towards funeral expenses and Rs. 5,000/- was added towards loss of consortium. Thus, a total amount of Rs. 7,12,000/- was awarded.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the Tribunal has gone wrong in law in assessing the income of the deceased to be on the lower side. He has submitted that since it has come on record that the deceased was an established shop keeper in the business of vegetable vendor, having license and his own shop, therefore, the deposition made by the wife of the deceased that the deceased was earning Rs. 20,000/- per month stands corroborated. Hence his submission
