Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(CG) 6459
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH
Sachin Singh Rajput, J
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Smt. Ranjana Bhatt, Minor Ku. Kriti Bhatt, Minor Ku. Kanya Bhatt – Respondent
MAC No. 272 of 2017
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shri Sudhir Agrawal
For the Respondents: Shri Shiv Kumar Shrivastava
Court emphasized the necessity for verified income documentation for just compensation in accident claims, requiring remand for thorough evidence assessment.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 173 - Appeal against compensation awarded for death in motor accident - Tribunal awarded Rs.53,93,975/- for deceased’s death due to negligent driving - Appellant challenged compensation based on income documentation, asserting lack of evidence for income claims; court found inadequacies in proof of income tax returns and remanded the case for fresh adjudication. (Paras 1, 9)
(B) Compensation - Requirement for proven income - Tribunal must conduct thorough inquiries to ascertain the actual income of the deceased when evidence is lacking; insufficient documentation cannot substantiate the claimed earnings. (Paras 7, 9)
Facts of the case:
Deceased Saras Bhatt, aged 44 years, died in an accident, leading to a compensation claim. His business income was contested due to improper proof of income tax returns.
Findings of Court:
Inadequate evidence necessitates remand for verification of income to ensure just compensation.
Issues: The main issue is the sufficiency of evidence provided to ascertain the deceased's income for determining compensation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the necessity of complete and verifiable income evidence for just compensation and outlined the need for remand to clarify uncertainties in income claims.
Result: The matter is remanded for fresh adjudication.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. court addresses jurisdiction and basis for appeal. (Para 1) |
| 2. details of claim and counterclaims regarding compensation. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. parties' arguments regarding the adequacy and accuracy of compensation. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 4. court evaluates evidence related to income tax returns. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 5. court mandates remand for further examination of income evidence. (Para 9) |
| 6. final decision to partly allow appeal and remand for further proceedings. (Para 10) |
1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the MV Act’) is arising out of award dated 21/07/2016 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Korba, Chhattisgarh in motor accident claim case No.62/2014. By the impugned award, against a claim of Rs.3,36,00,000/-/-, learned Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.53,93,975/- in favour of the respondents / claimants on account of death of Saras Bhatt in an accident that occurred on 15/12/2010 by rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle (Bus) bearing registration No.CG 12D/9995 by respondent No.1, owned by respondent No.2 and insured with respondent No.3 /insurance company.
2. As per pleadings of the claim application, the deceased – Saras Bhatt was aged about 44 years, he was operating petrol pump and was engaged in tyre re-trading business. The claim application was resisted by respondent no.1 on various grounds. Respondent No.2 and 3 filed their written statement and denied the claim averments and the insurance company took a plea that there was violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding valid and effective driving license.
3. On the basis of above broad pleadings, learned Tribunal framed issues, decided those issues in favour of the appellant / claimant and awarded aforestated compensation.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the compensation awarded is on the higher side. The learned Tribunal relied upon the income tax return whereas the same has not been proved in accordance with law. He submits that the business income of the deceased has been shown and it is still continuing therefore, the finding of the learned Tribunal holding the yearly income of the deceased to Rs.5,22,397/- is bad in law. Therefore, the amount of compensation may be reduced. I
5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents / claimants supports the award and submits that just compensation has been awarded and there is no need to interfere with the award.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions and perused the records.
7. Learned Tribuanal relied upon the income tax return and found the yearly income of the deceased to Rs.5,22,397/-. In order to prove the income, the claimant / respondent No.1 examined herself as AW1 and stated that at the time of accident, her husband (deceased) was Proprietor of Hindustan Petroleum which is in the name of Amba Fuels and he was earning Rs.15 to 20 lakhs yearly. She exhibited documents relating to income tax return from Ex.p/11 to P/16. She further deposed that Ex.P/13 to Ex.P/16 does not contain seal of the income tax department. She also admits that in Ex.P/14 there is no signature of anyone. However, she herself stated that there is signature of CA – S.C. Goyal on Ex.P/15 and 16. She further stated that Ex.P/13 and P/14 are income tax return of Sharda Cold Re-traders. She has denied suggestion that for want of knowledge that the income tax return of the year 2009-10 (Ex.P/13) was never submitted in the income tax department. She further admitted that Sharda Cold Re-traders Pvt. Ltd is still functioning but she cannot tell as to who are the share holders. She further stated that there are about 10-12 share holders of the company. She denied the suggestion that she and her children are the share holders of the company. She further stated that the petrol pump is named and filed as Amba Fuels and is still operating in Bemetara
