Chattisgarh High Court
Smt. Ganeshwari Bai Verma vs Paras Ram Dhruv on 5 February, 2025
-1-
Digitally
signed by
REKHA SINGH
2025:CGHC:6514
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MAC No. 750 of 2023
1 - Smt. Ganeshwari Bai Verma W/o Gaindram Verma Aged About 50 Years R/o
Village - Ghoghre, Police Station Chhuikhadan, Tahsil- Chhuikhadan, District :
Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh
... Appellant
versus
1 - Paras Ram Dhruv S/o Sahdev Dhruv Aged About 43 Years R/o Village -
Madhuban, Tahsil Bhatapara, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh
2 - Vivek Agrawal S/o Lakeshwar Prasad Agrawal Aged About 49 Years R/o 107,
Gandhi Mandir Ward, Near Aditya Hospital Bhatapara, Tahsil Bhatapara, District :
Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh
3 - The New India Insurance Company Ltd. Branch Office - Ambedkar Chowk Near
Union Bank Bhatapara, Tahsil Bhatapara, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara,
Chhattisgarh
4 - Smt. Neha Verma Wd/o Lt. Lekhram Verma Aged About 21 Years R/o Village -
Ghoghre, Police Station Chhuikhadan, Tahsil- Chhuikhadan, District :
Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh
... Respondents
For Appellant/Claimant : Mr. Akash Shrivastava, Advocate
For Respondent No.1 &2 : Mr. Vivek Shrivastava, Advocate
For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Dashrath Gupta, Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey
Order on Board
05.02.2025
1) Heard.
2) The appellant/claimant has filed this appeal against the award dated
03.01.2023 passed by the learned Additional Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Khairagarh, District Khairagarh-Chhuikhadan-Gandai (C.G.) in
Claim Case No.33/2022 for enhancement of compensation.
3) The facts of the present case are that on 14.04.2022 at about 7:30 a.m.
when the deceased Lekhram Verma along with his father was going for
treatment on his motorcycle bearing registration No.C.G.-08-AS-1303
towards Paddy Procurement Centre at Village Mandrakuhi, the vehicle
bearing registration No.C.G.-4-JA-7159 being driven rashly and negligently,
dashed the motorbike of the deceased. Consequently, the deceased
sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to death.
4) Respondent No.2 was the owner of the vehicle and the offending vehicle
was insured with respondent No.3. The Claimant claimed a sum of
Rs.1,74,50,000/- as compensation. The driver, owner as well as the
insurance company filed their reply and denied the contents of the
application.
5) The learned Tribunal after appreciation of evidence fastened liability with the
insurance company as the offending vehicle was insured with it and awarded
a compensation of Rs.39,29,000/- with interest @ 7.5% from the date of
application till the date of its realization.
6) Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/claimant would argue that the
learned Tribunal committed an error of law in assessing the notional income
of the deceased. He would further submit that according to Ex.P/13, the
income tax return of the year 2021-2022, the net professional income of the
deceased was Rs.2,45,150/- whereas, the Tribunal has assessed the
monthly income of the deceased to the tune of Rs.20,000/- and the same
was on the lower side. He would contend that on other heads, proper
compensation was paid by the Tribunal. He would further contend that the
correct multiplier was applied and 1/3rd amount from the notional income
was deducted as there were only two dependents.
7) On the other hand, Mr. Gupta, the learned counsel appearing for the
Insurance Company would submit that there is a difference of only
Rs.5,150/- and in round figure, Rs.20,000/- monthly income was assessed
by the learned Tribunal and therefore, there is no need to revisit the award
passed by the learned Tribunal.
8) Mr. Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.1 & 2 would
support the contentions made by Mr. Gupta.
9) I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the
records.
10)The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matters of Malarvizhi and others Vs.
United India Insurance Company Limited and another, 2020 (4) SCC 228
and Anjali and others Vs. Lokendra Rathod and others, 2022 SCC
Online SC 1683, held that the income tax return being statutory document is
admissible and the Court should give preference to such document.
11)In the matter of Malarvizhi (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 10
held as under:-
"10.The Tribunal proceeded to determine the agricultural
income arising from 36.76 acres of land on the basis of two
judgments of the High Court. The Tribunal arrived at two
different figures by applying the decisions and proceeded to
determine the agricultural income on an average of the two
amounts. The Tribunal superimposed a possible value of
income from agricultural land despite a clear indication in the
income tax returns of the income from agricultural land. The
method adopted by the Tribunal is not sustainable in law. On
the other hand, the High Court has proceeded on the basis
of the income reflected in the income tax returns for the
assessment year 1997-1998. The relevant portion of the
return reads:
"Income from House property - Rs. 1,920
Business profit (other than 14.b) - Rs.1,21,071
Net Agricultural income - Rs. 88,140"
The tax return indicates an annual income of Rs 2,11,131 in
the relevant assessment year. Mr Jayanth Muth Raj, learned
Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant
contended that other documents were marked which
reflected the income of the deceased. We are in agreement
with the High Court that the determination must proceed on
the basis of the income tax return, where available. The
income tax return is a statutory document on which reliance
may be placed to determine the annual income of the
deceased. To the benefit of the appellants, the High Court
has proceeded on the basis of the income tax return for the
assessment year 1997-1998 and not 1999-2000 and 2000-
2001 which reflected a reduction in the annual income of the
deceased."
12)The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Anjali (supra), in para 10
observed thus:-
"10.Hence, this Court is of the opinion that the deceased's
annual income be fixed at Rs.1,18,261/-, approx.
Rs.9,855/- per month keeping in mind the deceased's
Income Tax Return for the year 2009-2010."
13)In the present case according to the income tax return of the year 2021-22,
the net professional income of the deceased prior to the date of the accident
was Rs.2,45,150/-. The learned Tribunal has assessed the monthly income
of the deceased to the tune of Rs.20,000/- and assessed the notional
income to the tune of Rs.2,40,000/-
14)Taking into consideration the submissions made by Mr. Akash Shrivastava,
and the income tax return of the year 2021-22 vide Ex.P/13, the
compensation is revisited herein below:-
1. As per Income Tax Return (2021-22) RS,2,45,150/-
2. Yearly Income Rs.2,45,150/-
3. 40% Future Prospect Rs.2,45,150 x 40 % 100
= Rs.98,060/-
4. After Future prospect Rs.3,43,210/-
5. Deduction 1/3rd Rs.3,43,210 x 1/3 = Rs1,14,403/-
6. After deduction income Rs.2,28,807/-
7. Multiplier of 17 (Rs.2,28,807 x 17) =
Rs.38,89,719
8. Total Dependency Rs.38,89,719/-
9. Loss of Funeral Rs.18,000/-
10. Loss of Estate Rs.18,000/-
11. Spousal & Filial Rs.48,000 x 2 = Rs.96,000/-
12. Total Compensation Rs.40,21,719/-
13. Amount awarded Rs.39,29,000/-
14. Amount to be enhanced Rs.92,719/-
15) In the light of above discussion, apart from the above compensation which
has been assessed by the learned Tribunal, this Court awards further sum of
Rs.92,719/- looking to the income tax return of the year 2021-22.
Respondents No.3/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the amount of
compensation as enhanced by this Court within a period of 60 days from the
date of receipt of a copy of this order. The rate of interest would be the same
as awarded by the learned Tribunal i.e. @ 7.5% from the date of application
till the date of its realization. The rest of the terms and conditions shall
remain intact.
16) In view of the above, the appeal is partly allowed.
Sd/-
(Rakesh Mohan Pandey)
Judge
Rekha
