The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the assessment made by the income tax authority for determining the deceased's income and the use of a multiplier for calculating loss of dependency in motor accident compensation cases.

JUDGMENT :

Kuldip Singh, J.

Claimants have filed this appeal against award dated 10.3.2004 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karnal (for short, 'the Tribunal') , as they are not satisfied with the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

2. Facts of the case are that Sheela Rani, wife of claimant No.1 Jagdish Lal Ahuja and mother of claimant nos.2 to 4, was running a manufacturing unit in the name and style of M/s Kamal Leathers at Village Kachhwa, District Karnal. She was an income tax payee. Her date of birth as per record is 5.3.1947. On 26.5.2002, Sheela Rani was travelling in a car bearing registration number HR-30C-0012 bring driven by her husband Jagdish Lal Ahuja and was going from Karnal town towards Prem Nagar, Karnal. Jagdish Lal Ahuja was driving the car at a very moderate speed on the left side of the road. When they reached down side the railway over bridge towards Prem Nagar, the offending Trax Jeep bearing registration number MKE-TB-5927 being driven by respondent no.1- driver, namely, Ram Chander, came at a very fast speed in a rash and negligent manner from the opposite side. Respondent no.1 could not control the Trax Jeep and hit the motorcycle of one Sandep Kumar and then Trax Jeep lost the control and hit the car. Deceased received multiple injuries. She succumbed to the injuries at Civil Hospital, Karnal. It is claimed that the deceased was earning Rs.16,000/- to Rs.20,000/- per month. Because of the death of the deceased, the claimants have been deprived of the income of the deceased. They have also been deprived of love and affection of the deceased.

3. In the reply, respondent no.1 driver of the Trax Jeep denied that the deceased was running a leather unit. Her income was also denied. It was stated that the accident, if any, took place due to rash and negligent driving of claimant no.1 Jagdish Lal Ahuja, who being an old person, was not able to properly drive the car. He tried to take a turn towards right hand side over bridge without giving signal or indicator and struck against the incoming vehicle. Respondent no.1 also denied that accident took place due to negligence of the Trax Jeep driver. The Insurance company also denied the claim. From the pleadings, following issues were framed:-

1. Whether the accident in question took place due to the rash and negligent driving of Jeep bearing No.MKE-TB-5927 by its driver respondent no.1, if so its effect? OPP

2. If issue no.1 is proved, whether the claimants are entitled to receive any compensation, if so how much and from whom?

OPP

3. Whether the respondent no.1 driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid and effectively driving licence at the time of accident, if so its effect? OPR

4. Relief.

4. While deciding issue no.1, the Tribunal held that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of driver of the Trax Jeep.

5. The Tribunal took up issue nos.2 and 3 together and took the view that income tax return for only two years have been produced. In the income tax return for the year 2001-2002, income has been shown as Rs.1,71,470/-. In the next income tax return for the year 2002-2003 (Ex.P2), which was filed after her death, income has been shown to be Rs.2,10,000/-. The Tribunal relied upon the income tax return for the year 2001-2002 filed by the deceased Sheela Rani herself and after deducting the income tax of Rs.23,916/-, took the view that the income of the deceased was Rs.1,40,000/-. It was further held that claimant no.1 is employed in Labour Department, Haryana and was having independent income. Loss of dependency taken to be 40%, which was calculated as Rs.56,000/- per annum. The multiplier of 8 was applied and compensation calculated as Rs.4,48,000/-. Rs.2000/- on account of funeral expenses were allowed. Rs.5000/- were allowed on account of loss of consortium and total compensation of Rs.4,55,000/- was allowed.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through the record.

7. First of all, th