SMT. SANGEETA SHRIVASTAVA W/O LATE DR. SHRI SANTOSH KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA vs BABLU SINGH S/O SHRI SHANKAR SINGH

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(RAJ) 3523

[2025:RJ-JP:5195]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Review Petition No. 30/2024
1. Smt. Sangeeta Shrivastava W/o Late Dr. Shri Santosh Kumar Shrivastava, Aged About 54 Years, R/o 26, Harvilas Harda Marg Colony, Civil Lines, Distt. Ajmer.
2. Shreshtha Kumar Shrivastava S/o Late Dr. Shri Santosh Kumar Shrivastava, Aged About 27 Years, Through Power Of Attorney Holder And Mother Smt. Sangeeta Shrivastava.. R/o 26, Harvilas Sharda Marg Colony, Civil Lines, Distt. Ajmer.
3. Vishesh Kumar Shrivastava S/o Late Dr. Shri Santosh Kumar Shrivastava, Aged About 25 Years, R/o 26, Harvilas Sharda Marg Colony, Civil Lines, Distt. Ajmer.
----Petitioners Versus
1. Bablu Singh S/o Shri Shankar Singh, Aged About 78 Years, R/o Pokhriyon Ki Dhani, Hokra Via Pushkar, Distt.
Ajmer Driver Of Vehicle No. Rj-010-Ga-7354
2. Navratna Maheshwari S/o Shri Sitaram Maheshwari, 138, L.i.c Colony, Vaishali Nagar, Distt. Ajmer. Registered Owner Of Vehicle
3. National Insurance Company Limited, Through Local Branch Manager, Local Branch Office Near Punjab National Bank,kachhari Road, Ajmer Raj.
----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Ms.Rekha Jain, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajpal Choudhary, Adv.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

Judgment

Date of Judgment 06/02/2025 The review petition has been filed by the petitioners under Section 114 of CPC, 1908 read with Order 47 Rule 1 CPC for reviewing the judgment dated 19.02.2024 passed by this court in S. B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.2670/2017.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners had filed S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.2670/2017 being dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated 08.02.2017 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ajmer in Claim Case No.528/2014 titled as “Sangeeta Srivastava & Ors. Vs. Bablu Singh & Ors.” in which this Court while partly allowing the appeal filed by the petitioners modified the impugned judgment and award as under:-

Monthly income	Rs.90,066/-
Annual Income	90,066X12=10,80,792/-
According to the age of the deceased, Multiplier 11 to be applied	10,80,792 X 11=1,18,88,712/-
1/3 is to be deducted for personal expenses of the deceased	1,18,88,712 – 39,62,904/- = 79,25,808/-
Since, the deceased was a Government Servant and his age was determined about 54 years, add 15% towards future prospects	79,25,808+11,88,871/- = 91,14,679.2/- (round off Rs.91,14,679/-)
Less 30% Income Tax and 3% surcharge	91,14,679/- - 28,16,436/- (27,34,404+82,032/-) = 62,98,243/-
Loss of consortium to claimants No. 1 to 3 (40,000 X 3)	Rs.1,20,000/-
Funeral expenses (+)	Rs. 15,000/-
Loss of Estate	Rs.15,000/-
Total	Rs.64,48,243/-
Less amount awarded by the Tribunal	Rs.47,44,130/-
Enhanced Amount of compensation	64,48,243 – 47,44,130= Rs.17,04,113/-

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that this Court has committed an error in deducting the income tax @ 30% and 3% surcharge from the amount assessed by adding multiplier and future prospects, whereas the income tax had to be deducted only after assessing the annual income.

Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that as per judgments passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court, actual salary means annual salary minus income tax in which future prospects and multiplier could not be added. As per the salary slip (Exhibit- 24), gross income of the deceased was Rs.90,066/- per month annual income of which comes to Rs.10,80,792/-. So, income tax had to be deducted as per annual income i.e. Rs.10,80,792/-, so the judgment dated 19.02.2024 passed by this Court be reviewed accordingly.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon the following judgments:-

(1) Smt. Asha Singhal and Ors. Vs. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and Anr. in S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.2504/2017 decided on 14.07.2023 (2) Smt. Sarla Verma and Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr. reported in AIR 2009 SC 3104 (3) National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranav Sethi reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157 (4) Vimla Sharma and Ors. Vs. Bhagwan Sahay and Ors. in S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.417/2022 decided on 08.05.2024.

Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners and submitted that this court vide judgment dated 19.02.2024 rightly deducted the income tax and judgment of this Court cannot be reviewed because said mistake is not apparent on the face of the record. If the petitioners have any grievance, they can file an appeal and can also file the revised return before the income tax authorities and avail the refund for the same. So, the review petition be dismissed.

Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has placed reliance upon the following judgments:-

(1) Hafizur Rehmand Vs. The Board of Revenue For Rajasthan & Ors. reported in 2024 RJ-JP: 37750 (2). Asharfi Devi(Dead) through legal representatives Vs.

State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. reported in (2019) 5 SCC 86 (3) Parsion Devi and Ors. Vs. Sumitri Devi & Ors. reported in (1997) 8 SCC 715 (4) National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi &

Ors. reported in 2018(1) WLC (SC) Civil 1.

I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned counsel

Click Here to Read the rest of this document