New Delhi Municipal Committee vs Maini Sundri Jain
1996 Latest Caselaw 789 Del

JUDGMENT

Usha Mehra, J.

(1) Shri Raghbir Singh Jain with his wife Maina Sundri Jain and one Smt.SarlIa Devi Jain were coming on a three wheeler scooter on 7th December, 1971 after attending funeral of a relation. The said three wheeler scooter was driven by Shri Harbans Lal. The scooter was coming from R.K.Puram side to Darya Ganj. At about 5.00 Pm when the scooter crossed the crossing of Indian Oil Petrol Pump on Willingdon Cresent near Talkatora Garden, a truck bearing No.DLL-1666 owned by New Delhi Municipal Committee (in short NDMC) coming at a fast speed in a rash and negligent manner struck against the three wheeler scooter. The truck was coming on the wrong side of the road. The scooter driver tried to avoid the accident, but due to the rash and negligent driving of the Truck Driver this accident occured. Due to this accident Raghbir Singh Jain sustained serious injuries which ultimately caused his death in the hospital.

(2) Deceased Raghbir Singh Jain left behind his widow, two sons and one daughter. Daughter Rita Jain and son Deepak Jain were minor at that time. The other son Sushil Kumar Jain was major. Deceased Raghbir Singh Jain was a Government Contractor and was working under the name and style of M/s Bhisan Narain & Sons. His annual income from this business for the year ending 31st March971 was Rs.28,658.00 . The legal heirs of the deceased Raghbir Singh Jain made a claim of Rs.5 lakhs by way of compensation. This claim was contested by the respondent/ NDMC. However, after appreciating the evidence which had come on record, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (in short Tribunal) held that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the Truck owned by NDMC. Relying on the testimony of deceased's wife the Tribunal came to the conclusion that deceased was 55 years old at the time of his death. On the basis of the Income Tax Assessment Order it was observed by the Tribunal that the income of the deceased from the said business was Rs.28,000.00 per annum. Taking that to be the annual income and applying the multiplier of 15 years, the Tribunal concluded that the dependency loss came to Rs.4,20,000.00 . Out of this a deduction of 50".. was made and thus awarded a net amount of Rs.2,10,000.00 on which interest of the rate of 6% was also awarded.

(3) It is primarily on account of 50% deductions made by the Tribunal from the dependency loss that cross objections have been filed.

(4) MR.H.S.DHIR, appearing for the claimants/ objectors contended that as per the Income Tax Assessment Order for the year 1971-72 the annual income of the deceased was assessed to Rs.28,659.00 . This was proved vide exhibit PW.IO/8. Income tax was paid on the demand of Rs.28,660.00 . Rounding of the figure was done by the Income Tax Department. The Tribunal instead of taking the income to be Rs.28,660.00 per annum or rounding up to Rs.29,000.00 per annum in fact reduced it to Rs.28,000.00 per annum. Relying on the accountancy principle, Mr.Dhir contended that when the amount exceeds five percent then it has to be treated as one unit. In this case since the amount was Rs.28,660.00 i.e. more than Rs.500.00 hence this ought to have have been treated as RS.1,000.00 . Relying on the accountancy principle. Tribunal should have taken the annual income of the deceased to be Rs.29,000.00 and not Rs.28,000.00 . Even if the accountancy principle is ignored still there was no justification for the Tribunal not to take into account the income as assessed by the Income Tax Department i.e. Rs.28,660.00 . But the Tribunal ignored the same without assigning any reasons. If the annual income is taken to be Rs.29,000.00 and applying the multiplier of 15 years the dependency loss would come to Rs.4,35,000.00 . But if the income of the deceased as per the Income Tax Assessment Order Exhibit PW.10/8 is taken, then the dependency loss would come to Rs.4,29,900.00 meaning thereby Rs.4,30,000.00 . To this extent Mr.Dhir's contention appears to be correct because the Tribunal without assigning any reason reduced the annual income of the deceased even from what has been mentioned in Exhibit PW.IO/8. Therefore, on the basis of Exhibit PW.IO/8 the dependency loss ought to have been assessed at Rs.4,30,000.00 and not Rs.4,20,000.00 . So far as the decisions relied by the Tribunal namely Mrs. Manju & ors. Vs. B.L.Gupta & ors. 1971 Acj 134 and General Manager, Orissa Roadways Transport Corporation Vs. Jama Swain, 1980 ACJ195 respectively, those are not applicable to the facts of this case. In those cases, the Court first enhanced the annual income of the-deceased to double and then made deduction at 50%. Future earning of the deceased was added up and then reduced to one half. Similarly in the case of General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Mrs. Susama Thomas & ors., , the Supreme Court taking into consideration the future earning and prospects of the deceased made the deceased's income double and then deducted one third out of the same. But in the case in hand, the Tribunal did not apply the same principle. He did not add the future earning of the deceased. Having not done so, the Tribunal was not justified to reduce at the rate of 50% from the dependency loss. Since the Tribunal .did not add up the future earning, therefore, deduction cannot be justified either at the rate of one third or one half. Deduction at 50% may not be justified but deduction on account of his personal expenses is allowed and has to be made. Deceased was a businessman. He must be spending some money on himself. Therefore, I am of the view that deduction at best could be Rs.50,000.00 as personal expenses of the deceased out of the dependency loss of Rs.4,30,000.00 . Hence, after deducting the personal expenses from dependency loss the amount of compensation would come to Rs.3,80,000.00 .

(5) While awarding the compensation, the Tribunal fixed the ratio on which basis claimants were to receive the amount. Now since the death of deceased and decision of this appeal it has taken almost 15 years, the minor children have become major and married whereas widow, who is 75 years old, is still alive hence due to these changed circumstances, I am changing the ratio of distribution. Ms.Rita Jain who was minor at the time of her father's death is now married and so is the son Deepak Jain. Mr.Sushil Kumar Jain was already a major. Therefore, keeping in view the interest of justice, I change the ratio with regard to the amounts of compensation now awarded. Smt.Maina Sundri Jain, widow of the deceased Raghbir Singh Jain will get an additional amount of Rs.l,40,000.00 and the balance amount of Rs.30,000.00 will be divided among Smt.Rita, Mr.Deepak Jain and Mr.Sushil Kumar Jain in equal proportion i.e. Rs.l0,000.00 each. Out of this amount of Rs.l,40,000.00 , an amount of Rs.40,000.00 would be paid in cash to Smt.Maina Sundri Jain and the balance of Rs.l lakh will be deposited in the form of Fdr to be taken out from a nationalised bank for a period of two years. On this enhanced amount of compensation, the claimants/objectors would also be entitled to interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of application till realisation. The rate of interest has been varied from 6% fixed by the Tribunal to 9% because of the stay obtained by Ndmc the objector's were deprived of the amount awarded by the Tribunal. They were released the amount awarded by the Tribunal subject to security. The said appeal of the Ndmc has already been dismissed. Hence the award of interest at the rate of 9%.