Partly allowed

Darshan Singh and Anr. v. Nand Kishore and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC2 May 2017FAO/4265/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court adjudicated appeals against a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award. The Court held the Tribunal erred in using post-death income tax returns, directed recalculation using the correct prior year's return, and fixed the compensation amount.

What did the court decide?

Compensation recalculated to Rs. 24,51,370. Insurance company's appeal partly allowed; claimants' appeal dismissed.

Darshan Singh and Anr. Vs Nand… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Punjab & Haryana HC (2017)

¶1

F.A.O No. 4265 of 2010 (O&M) F.A.O No. 2823 of 2010 (O&M)

¶2

-1-

¶3

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh

¶4

1. F.A.O No. 4265 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 02.5.2017 Darshan Singh and others ......Appellants Versus Nand Kishore and others .....Respondents 2. F.A.O No. 2823 of 2010 (O&M) United India Insurance Company Limited ......Appellant Versus

¶5

Darshan Singh and others .....Respondents

¶6

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANITA CHAUDHRY

¶7

Present: Ms. Monika Arora, Advocate for Mr. Pritam Saini, Advocate for the appellants. (in FAO-4265-2010) and for respondents No. 1 to 3 (in FAO-2823-2010) Mr. V. Ramswaroop, Advocate for the appellant-insurance company (in FAO-2823-2010) and for respondent No. 3 (in FAO-4265-2010) Mr. Arun Singal, Advocate for respondent No. 1 (in FAO-4265-2010) and for respondent No. 4 (in FAO-2823-2010)

¶8

¶9

ANITA CHAUDHRY, J

¶10

These are the two appeals, one filed by the insurance company

¶11

Gurpreet Singh Bhatia 2017.05.08 16:26 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this documentand the other by the claimants against the award dated 6.2.2010 passed by Chandigarh

¶12

F.A.O No. 4265 of 2010 (O&M) -2F.A.O No. 2823 of 2010 (O&M)

¶13

the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Panipat.

¶14

Paramjit Kaur aged 40 years met with an accident on 18.4.2009. The claim petition was filed by the husband, minor daughter and son who was married. It was claimed that the deceased was running a business under the name and style of M/s Sony Textiles and was earning Rs. 30,000/- per month. Income tax returns for several years were placed on record but the Tribunal took ITR Ex. P6 which was filed after the death and applying the multiplier of 15 and making a deduction of 1/3rd, the compensation was calculated as Rs. 24,48,000/-. A sum of Rs. 10,000/- was added for transportation and funeral expenses. Rs. 5,000/- was allowed for loss of consortium raising the total to Rs. 24,63,000/-.

¶15

The submission on behalf of the insurance company is that the Tribunal had wrongly considered the income tax return for the year which had been filed after the death and it should have taken the return which was for the preceding year as the death has taken place in April 2009.

¶16

The submission of the claimants/appellants was that though the ITR has been filed after the death but it pertained to the relevant year. It was held that no amount had been allowed for loss of love and affection and for future prospects or for loss of estate and very less amount had been allowed for the loss of consortium.

¶17

So far as the addition towards future prospects is concerned, it cannot be made as the deceased was self-employed and the matter is still under consideration with the larger Bench.

¶18

The Tribunal had considered the income tax return which was filed after the death and could not have been considered. The Tribunal Gurpreet Singh Bhatia2017.05.08 16:26 should have considered the income tax return for the year 2007-08 and I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶19

F.A.O No. 4265 of 2010 (O&M) -3F.A.O No. 2823 of 2010 (O&M)

¶20

according to Ex. P5 the income in that year was Rs. 2,12,636/- and if the calculations are made again and deduction of 1/3^rd is made, the amount would come to Rs. 1,41,758/- and after applying the multiplier of 15, the compensation would come to Rs. 21,26,370/-. Rs. 1,00,000/- should be added for loss of consortium, Rs. 25,000/- for funeral expenses, Rs. 1,00,000/- for loss of estate and Rs. 1,00,000/- for loss of love and affection for the minor child raising the total to Rs. 24,51,370/-. The Tribunal had allowed Rs. 24,63,000/-. The amount actually payable would be Rs., 24,51,370/-. The claimants are not entitled to any enhancement.

¶21

In view of the above, the appeal filed by the insurance company is partly allowed. The appeal filed by the claimants is dismissed.

¶22

(ANITA CHAUDHRY) JUDGE

¶23

May 02, 2017 Gurpreet Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes Whether reportable : No

¶24

Gurpreet Singh Bhatia 2017.05.08 16:26 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Darshan Singh and Anr. v. Nand Kishore and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Darshan Singh and Anr. v. Nand Kishore and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Murti Shivji Maharaj of Mandir Shivwala Vs Sharam Singh etc.

Dharamvir Vs Hoshiar Singh

Santosh Devi Vs Sukhbir and Ors.

Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Comp Ltd. Vs Kamlesh and Ors.

Shamsher Kaur and Ors. Vs Surinder Kumar and Ors.

Satta & Anr. Vs Pohu Lal & Anr.