Allowed

Smt Manju and Ors. v. Mahesh Kumar Sharma and Ors.

Rajasthan HC5 Sept 2018CMA/4046/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an appeal to enhance motor accident compensation. The court rejected the Tribunal's rejection of income tax returns as evidence regarding the deceased's income and admitted an Income Tax Officer's letter as additional evidence to prove income, leading to an award increase from Rs.19.45 lakhs to Rs.23.52 lakhs.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs. 23,52,000/-; impugned award modified; enhanced amount to be invested in fixed deposit.

Smt Manju and Ors. Vs Mahesh Kumar Sharma and Ors. — Motor Accident Claims | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 4046/2017

¶3

Smt Manju wife of Late Shri Prakash Chand, aged about 34 years,

¶4

Sagar Son of Late Shri Prakash Chand aged about 14 years,

¶5

Sonu son of Late Shri Prakash Chand, aged about 12 years,

¶6

Appellant No.2 and 3 are minor through natural guardian mother Smt. Manju Devi, all are by caste Brahmin, resident of Village Khan Jhankri, Tehsil & District Dausa (Raj.)

¶7

----Claimants-Appellants

¶8

Versus

¶9

Mahesh Kumar Sharma son of Jagdish Narayan Sharma, by caste Brahmin, resident of Papada, Tehsil Nangalrajawatan, district Dausa (Raj.)

¶10

(Power of Attorney and Purchaser of Vehicle)

¶11

Smt. Beena wife of Rajendra Kumar, by csate Brahmin, resident of Tiwari Dharmkanta, Ward No.16, Tehsil & District Dausa (Raj.)

¶12

(Owner of Vehicle)

¶13

National Insurance Company Ltd., through Branch Manager, Branch Office Near Poonam Cinema, Lalsot Road, Dausa, District Dausa (Raj.).

¶14

(Insurance Co. of Vehicle)

¶15

----Non-Claimants-Respondents

¶16

For Appellant(s)	: Mr.	Sandeep Kumar Sharma
For Respondent(s)	: Mr.	Tripurari Sharma

¶17

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH GUPTA

¶18

Judgment

¶19

05/09/2018

¶20

This appeal for enhancement of compensation is directed against the judgment and award dated 27.04.2017

¶21

(2 of 5)

¶22

[CMA-4046/2017]

¶23

passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dausa (for short ‘the Tribunal’), whereby, the tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.19,45,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 9% per annum with effect from 18.09.2014.

¶24

Contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the tribunal committed an error in discarding the income tax returns of the assessment year 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14, respectively, which were tendered in evidence as (Ex.24-26). The basis of discarding these material documents was that the same do not bear signatures of the deceased. The other reason given by the tribunal was that the returns have been prepared manually whereas in the relevant years, the same were submitted on-line. The reasons so assigned by the tribunal are hypothetical. After exhibiting the same, there was no justified reason for not believing in their contents, particularly when no evidence was submitted in rebuttal. However, to substantiate their averments, the claimants-appellants have submitted an application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC for seeking permission to produce a letter issued by the income tax officer Dausa, wherein also it is mentioned that the income of the deceased in the relevant year was Rs.155,500, 1,65,700 & 1,70,000. Therefore, a prayer was made by learned counsel for taking this document on record and for calculating the average income of the deceased for these three years, which comes to Rs.1,63,000/- per annum. Therefore, it is prayed to enhance the amount of compensation accordingly.

¶25

Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has submitted that the claimants were negligent in submitting the

¶26

(3 of 5)

¶27

[CMA-4046/2017]

¶28

certified copies of the returns of the relevant years during the trial of the claim petition. The application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC is not maintainable at this stage, as the same has been filed to fill up the lacunae.

¶29

I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties and have perused the material available on record.

¶30

Both the grounds stated by the learned tribunal in disbelieving the copies of returns (Ex.24 to 26) are misconceived. There was no reason on record to come to conclusion that the income tax returns were submitted only through online. Rather the same were submitted online as well as manually and in this regard information under RTI Act, 2005 has been supplied by Central Public Information Officer, Income Tax office, Dausa. The said information was available on the record of the tribunal and the learned tribunal did not consider the same. Even otherwise, all the three returns (Ex.24 to 26) bear the seal of the Income Tax Department itself, which prove that the returns were submitted in the Income Tax Department and in token of receipt these were given to the deceased. Therefore, the tribunal ought to have taken into consideration these documents in determining income of the deceased. However, to avoid the legal complication and for more clarity, the claimants have submitted a letter issued by the Income Tax Officer along with the application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC. This letter corroborates the version of the claimants given in (Ex.24 to 26). Therefore, the application is allowed and the letter is taken on record as additional evidence.

¶31

(4 of 5) [CMA-4046/2017]

¶32

In view of the oral and documentary evidence including the above stated letter of the Income Tax Officer, the average income of the deceased at the relevant time is assessed as Rs.1,63,000/- per annum in place of Rs.1,20,000/-.

¶33

Keeping in view the number of the dependents i.e. 3, one third (1/3) of the income of the deceased was rightly deducted by the tribunal towards deceased’s personal expenses. The deceased was aged about 38 years at the time of the accident. Thus, to work out the dependency of the claimants, the multiplier of 15 was rightly applied by the tribunal. In this way, the dependency of the claimants comes to Rs.16,30,000/(1,63,000x2/3x15). Further, in view of the judgment in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors., reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157, the claimants would be entitled to receive an addition of 40% of the said amount towards future prospects, which comes to Rs.6,52,000/-. The claimants would be further entitled to receive Rs.40,000/- towards consortium, Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate. Thus, the total amount of compensation receivable by the claimants comes to Rs.23,52,000/-.

¶34

Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. Impugned award dated 27.04.2017 is modified to the extent that the claimants would be entitled to receive Rs.23,52,000/- by way of compensation instead of Rs.19,45,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal. Remaining terms and conditions of the award shall be the same. It is also ordered that the share of the enhanced amount of the compensation shall be invested in fixed deposit with a

¶35

(5 of 5)

¶36

[CMA-4046/2017]

¶37

nationalised bank initially for a period of 2 years and the interest accrued thereon shall be paid to the claimants on monthly basis.

¶38

(PRAKASH GUPTA),J

¶39

SG/38

Smt Manju and Ors. v. Mahesh Kumar Sharma and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Manju and Ors. v. Mahesh Kumar Sharma and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sajid Khan Vs Vahid Khan and Others

National Insurance Company Vs Naveen Kumar Khati and Ors.

Ram Dayal Vs National Insurance Co. Ltd.

Sujaram Verma and Ors. Vs Krishan Lal Meel and Ors.

Raghunath Prasad S/O Ramdevara Vs Jeevanram and S/O Pemaram Jat

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Naresh and Others