The New India Assurance Company Limited, Vs Daya Bai Maghvani

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:37299 NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶4

MAC No. 808 of 2024

¶5

The New India Assurance Company Limited, Rama Trade Center, 2nd Floor Opposite Rajeev Plaza, Near Old Bus Stand Bilaspur, Tehsil And District-Bilaspur (C.G.) ThroughAuthorized Signatory Manager, T.P. Claim Hub At Office Bilaspur (C.G) --------(N.A. No.3)

¶6

... Appellant

¶7

versus

¶8

Daya Bai Maghvani W/o Naresh Kumar Maghvani, Aged About 45 Years R/o Ward No.7, Shashtri Chowk, Village And Post Akaltara, P.S. Akaltara, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.)

¶9

Naresh Kumar Maghvani S/o Goumal Maghvani, Aged About 49 Years R/o Ward No.7, Shashtri Chowk, Village And Post Akaltara, P.S. Akaltara, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.)

¶10

Kumari Reetu Maghvani D/o Naresh Kumar Maghvani, Aged About 21 Years R/o Ward No.7, Shashtri Chowk, Village And Post Akaltara, P.S. Akaltara, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.)

¶11

Kumari Yashika Maghvani D/o Naresh Kumar Maghvani, Aged About 15 Years Through Natural Guardian Mother Daya Bai Maghvani (Res1) R/o Ward No.7, Shashtri Chowk, Village And Post Akaltara, P.S. Akaltara, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) Claimants

¶12

Hariom Bharti S/o Puran Goswami, Aged About 33 Years R/o Village Kurma, P.S. Baloda, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.)

¶13

(Driver)(N.A.No.1)

¶14

2

¶15

Indermani Mineral India Pvt. Ltd. Tower, C-1, First Floor, Aishwarya Chamber, G.E. Road, Telibandha (Wrongly Mentioned As Telipara) Raipur, P.S. And Tehsil Raipur, District-Raipur (Cg)

¶16

... Respondent(s)

¶17

For Appellant : Mr. B.N. Nande, Advocate with Mr. Abhishek Mishra, Advocate. For Respondent Nos.1 to 4 : Mr. Akash Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent No.5 : Mr. Bharat Rajput, Advocate

¶18

Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Judgment On Board

¶19

21/8/2025

¶20

This appeal is filed by appellant Insurance challenging quantum of compensation awarded by learned 6^th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur vide award dated 8.1.2024 in Claim Case No.150/2022 and since the accident, involvement of offending vehicle, which is driven by nonapplicant No.1, owned by non-applicant No.2 and insured by non-applicant No.3/appellant herein, in said accident is not dispute, therefore, this Court is not adverting to the facts of the case and only considering submissions of learned counsel for respective parties on the question of quantum of compensation.

¶21

Learned counsel for appellant Insurance Company would submit that learned Claims Tribunal has taken into consideration income tax return of the year 2021-22 (Ex.P-38) submitted by claimants in support of the plea of income of

¶22

3

¶23

deceased. This income tax return is filed on 8.9.2021 and deceased died motor accidental death on 11.6.2021, thus it is apparent that income tax return, Ex.P-38, is filed after the death of the deceased. He next contended that even if claimants suffered loss of income due to death of deceased, it will not be loss of entire income from the business and may be loss of business management only. There is no evidence in record that business which is mentioned in ITR of the year 2021-22 is closed immediately after the death of deceased and in absence of such evidence, it will be presumed that established business is being carried by other family members of the deceased. In support of his submission, he places reliance upon decision of the coordinate Bench of this Court in MAC No.192/2024 (The New India Assurance Company Ltd. vs. Smt. Mamta Dahia and others) decided on 27.8.2024.

¶24

Learned counsel for claimants/respondents No.1 to 4 opposing the submissions of learned counsel for appellant, would submit that as per pleading made in claim application, the deceased was doing work of Salesman and earning income. Apart from that, deceased was also doing business of selling goods door-to-door after purchasing it from local market i.e. common trading. Income from the business is also shown in ITRs submitted by deceased during his lifetime in

¶25

4

¶26

the year 2019-2020 (Ex.P-34), 2020-21 (Ex.P-36), 2021-22 (Ex.P-38). Income from business has been shown to be increased gradually, therefore, it cannot be said that income tax returns submitted for the assessment year 2021-22 (Ex.P-38) after the death of deceased is to seek higher compensation against the death of deceased. In support of his contention he referred to evidence of AW-1. He next contended that K.K. Gupta, Tax Advisor examined before the Claims Tribunal to prove the income tax returns submitted and exhibited.

¶27

He further submitted that the claimants have also filed cross-appeal seeking enhancement of quantum of compensation on the ground that the Claims Tribunal has assessed income of deceased on lower side; deduction of 50% towards personal living expenses of deceased is wrong in view of the fact that deceased was survived by four dependent family members; and claimants No.3 and 4, who are sisters of deceased, have not been granted any compensation towards loss of consortium. Hence, he prays for enhancement of compensation suitably.

¶28

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.5 supported the impugned award.

¶29

Heard learned counsel for respective parties and perused the record.

¶30

5

¶31

So far as submission made by learned counsel for appellant objecting to the consideration of income tax returns submitted with the Income Tax Department after the death of deceased is concerned, in case of Rukhmani Jethani and others vs. Gopal Singh and others , reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 3496 , Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that “MACT committed error in not taking into consideration ITR filed on behalf of the deceased for the financial year 2004-05”. In the afore referred case, the deceased died on 15.9.2005 whereas income tax return was submitted after his death.

¶32

In Civil Appeal No.3400/2023, arising out of SLP (C) No.5784/2019, parties being Kavita Agrawal vs. Sarbajit Singh, decided on 4.5.2023, Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed thus:-

¶33

“10.In that light, even if the returns were filed subsequent to the date of death of the assessee, there is no exaggerated returns filed in the facts and circumstance, since it was a gradual increase in the income from the profession which the deceased was undertaking and such progression is required to be accepted.”

¶34

In the above facts of the case, a straight jacket formula cannot be applied that the income tax return submitted after the death of deceased could not be taken into consideration for the purpose of computing amount of compensation but it has to be considered analyzing the facts of each case.

¶35

6

¶36

In instant case, perusal of record would show that claimants have submitted before learned Claims Tribunal income tax returns of the year 2019-20, 2020-21, 2021-22. In the assessment year 2019-20, income from business is shown as Rs.1,49,640/-; in assessment year 2021-22, income from business is shown to be Rs.2,75,220/- and in assessment year 2021-22 it is shown as Rs.3,13,650/-. Whereas, income from salary during aforementioned assessment years is shown to be Rs.1,03,480/-; Rs.1,56,698/- and 1,57,800/respectively. Thus, income from business is appearing to have been increased gradually and therefore, even if income tax return submitted subsequent to death of deceased i.e. after the end of financial years on 31.3.2021, in the opinion of this Court, learned Claims Tribunal has not committed any error in relying upon the same and assessing income of deceased from business as mentioned in income tax return for the assessment year 2021-22.

¶37

Second submission of learned counsel for appellant is that in the income tax return submitted for the assessment year 2021-22 (Ex.P-38) business income of deceased has been shown to be Rs.2,75,220/-, however, there is no proof that said business has been closed after the death of deceased, therefore, there would be no loss of entire income from business i.e. Rs.2,75,222/- and after the death of deceased

¶38

7

¶39

the claimants might have suffered only management loss i.e. loss towards management of business.

¶40

Perusal of the record would show that father of deceased who is examined as AW-1, who has deposed that his son was engaged in the business of selling goods by visiting shop-toshop. He has not stated in specific words in his evidence that business was the established business and after the death of his son, the business of sale of goods has been closed totally. In view specific evidence of AW-1, burden was upon appellant Insurance Company to establish by admissible evidence that business of deceased was closed after his death in which it utterly failed. In absence of any such evidence it would be presumed that business which is started and established by the deceased, is continued by other family members even after death of deceased and therefore, in the opinion of this Court, submission of learned counsel for appellant that claimants have not suffered entire loss of business income of Rs.2,75,222/- and they might have suffered only management loss, is having force.

¶41

Accordingly, taking into consideration entirety of the facts of case, I find it appropriate to take 60% of the business income i.e. Rs.3,13,650/- shown in income tax returns for the assessment year 2021-2022 (Ex.P-38) towards loss of management, which works out to Rs.1,88,190/-. Upon adding

¶42

8

¶43

this amount to salary of deceased i.e. Rs.1,57,800/- as assessed by the Claims Tribunal, total income of deceased would come to Rs.3,45,990/- (1,88,190+1,57,800). Hence, I deem it appropriate to assess income of deceased as Rs.3,45,990/- per annum for the purpose of computing compensation for loss of dependency. It is ordered accordingly.

¶44

Deceased was bachelor at the time of accident, hence the Claims Tribunal was right in deducting one-half from his income towards personal expenses. Considering that father of claimant No.3 and 4 is alive, they cannot be considered as dependent on the deceased and being so, the Claims Tribunal rightly not awarded any amount as compensation for loss of consortium, which is even in consonance with decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Magma Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram and others , reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130 wherein it is held that the consortium is limited to spousal consortium, parental consortium and filial consortium.

¶45

For the foregoing, this Court proposes to recalculate amount of compensation payable to the claimants/respondents No.1 to 4 herein.

¶46

15.Accordingly, income of deceased is taken as Rs.3,45,990/per annum and after adding 40% towards future prospects,

¶47

9

¶48

total annual income of deceased would come to Rs.4,84,386/-. Out of this amount, one-half is to be deducted towards personal and living expenses of deceased and after deducting one-half, annual dependency would come to Rs.2,42,193/-. Applying multiplier of 18, as applied by Claims Tribunal, the loss of dependency would be Rs.43,59,774/-. Besides this, appellant No.1 & 2 are entitled for a sum of Rs.40,000/- each towards filial consortium, as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Nanu Ram @ Chuharu Ram (supra). In addition to aforesaid amount, appellants are entitled to get a sum of Rs.15,000/- for funeral expenses and Rs.15,000/- for loss of estate. However, as per decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Pranay Sethi (supra), the amount of compensation under the aforesaid heads i.e. loss of consortium, funeral expenses and loss of estate is to be increased @ 10% after every three years, therefore, the compensation under the head of loss of consortium works out as Rs.44000/- (10% of 40000 + 40000); loss of estate as Rs.16,500/- (10% of 15000 + 15000) and funeral expenses as Rs.16,5000/- (10% of 15000 + 15000). Thus, total amount of compensation comes to Rs.44,80,474/-. The enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of application till actual payment is made. Rest of the conditions mentioned in the impugned award shall remain

¶49

10

¶50

intact. Any amount disbursed to claimants/respondent No.1 to

¶51

4 pursuant to impugned award will be adjusted.

¶52

16.In the result, appeal preferred by appellant Insurance Company is allowed in part. Cross appeal filed on behalf of claimants-respondents No.1 to 4 is dismissed.

¶53

17.The impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated above.

¶54

(Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge

¶55

roshan/-

The New India Assurance Company Limited, v. Daya Bai Maghvani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The New India Assurance Company Limited, v. Daya Bai Maghvani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manager, United Insurance Company Vs Smt. Manju Jha

Mrs. Keja Bai Patle Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Branch Manager, Cholamandlam Ms General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Smt. Janmati

Mahendra Sodhi Vs Midun Krishna

Reliance General Insurance Company Limited Vs Smt. Anita Netam

Sukhram Kowasi Vs Diwakar Sona