Delhi High Court
Veena Bansal & Ors. vs Raghuraj & Ors. on 4 April, 2011
Author: Mool Chand Garg
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
#R-2.
+ MAC.APP. 3/2004
Date of Decision: 04.04.2011
VEENA BANSAL & ORS. ..... Appellants
Through Mr. Navneet Goyal, Adv.
Versus
RAGHURAJ & ORS. .... Respondents
Through None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOOL CHAND GARG
1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be
allowed to see the judgment? Yes
2. To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in
the Digest? Yes
: MOOL CHAND GARG, J(Oral):
1. This is an appeal filed by the appellant seeking enhancement of
the compensation awarded on a claim petition filed under Section 140
and 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act on the allegations that Mr. Pawan
Kumar Bansal, the deceased met with a vehicular accident in the night
intervening 12th and 13th March, 1997 and succumbed to his injuries.
2. At that time, the deceased was 41 years of age and was doing
whole sale business of spices as a partner in the firm M/s Sataya
Narain Pawan Kumar. It was alleged that he used to earn `15,000-
20,000/- per month and was paying income tax for the last 20 years.
His income was increasing steadily and it would have increased to
`30,000/- per month.
3. On the fateful night, the deceased was going while driving Maruti
Car No.DL-4-CC-5704 from Safdarjung Hospital side towards Dhaula
Kuan side in order to go to his house when he met with an accident
with a truck No.DHL-4272 allegedly driven in a rash and negligent
manner which was coming from Dhaula Kuan side. As stated above,
the deceased suffered fatal injuries and succumbed to his injuries. On
that basis, the claimants/appellants filed a claim petition seeking
compensation on various heads.
4. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal taking note of the income tax
return which was filed on record by appellants for the year 1996-1997
as well as for previous years assessed the income of the deceased for
the purpose of dependency for the relevant year at `70,660/- which was
the income shown in the return filed for the year 1996-97 i.e. for the
financial year 1995-96. Whereas according to the appellants, the
income tax return for the year 1997-98 which was filed by the legal
heirs of the deceased showed his income was at `1,15,105/-. Taking
multiplier of 15, considering the age of the deceased being 44 years and
taking his annual income at `70,660/- and after deducting 1/4th from
the said amount towards personal expenses, the Tribunal decided the
compensation by taking `52,995/- as the figure relevant for deciding
the dependency per annum and awarded compensation of `8,12,5000/-
after also adding a sum of `10,000/- on account of loss of expectation
of life, `5,000/- for funeral expenses and `2,500/- for the loss to estate.
Interest @9% p.a. was also awarded on the amount from the date of
filing of the claim petition till payment. The amount was apportioned in
terms of para-16 of the award.
5. It is the submission of the appellant that while deciding the
dependency, the amount of annual income has not been assessed
correctly inasmuch as from the income tax return which was placed on
record, it was clear that the deceased was having steady increase in the
income. As such, even if the Tribunal was not convinced about the
income tax return filed by the legal heirs showing a quantum jump in
the income of the deceased, the Tribunal ought to have considered
reasonable increase considering the previous years' figures in deciding
the annual income of the deceased at the time of his death.
6. It is also submitted that the future prospect have not been taken
into consideration by the Tribunal at all.
7. The appellants have relied upon the judgment of the Supreme
Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport
Corporation & Anr. (2009) 6 SCC 121 where all these aspects have been
considered.
8. Nobody has come forward to opposed the appeal inasmuch as
while respondent No.1, 2 and 4 are ex parte, respondent No.3 though
caused appearance once, has not cared to appear in the matter again.
This matter is shown in the regular board at least for the last three days
but nobody has appeared for the insurance company. Even Mr. Pankaj
Seth who was personally informed by learned counsel for the appellant
has not cared to appear.
9. In these circumstances, while considering the reasonable increase
in the income for the financial year 1996-97 from `70,660/-, to
`75,000/- in view of the income tax return of the previous years and by
allowing a deduction of `5000/- towards income tax payable as the
deceased had been claiming that he was an income tax payee and
thereby fixing the annual income of the deceased at `70,000/- and then
adding a sum of `21,000/- towards future prospects and thereafter
deducting 1/4th of the amount towards personal expenses taking into
consideration the number of dependants, annual income of the
deceased for the purpose of calculating dependency is fixed at
`68,250/-. In this case, after applying a multiplier of 15, as applied by
the Tribunal, the amount of compensation to be payable to the
dependents of the deceased arrives at `10,23,750/-. After adding a
sum of `10,000/- on account of loss of expectation of life, `5,000/- for
funeral expenses and `2,500/- for the loss to estate, the total amount
payable to the appellants is worked out at `10,41,250/- which is
rounded to `10,42,000/- This amount shall be recoverable from the
respondent jointly and severely along with interest @9% p.a. as awarded
by the Tribunal from the date of claim petition. The apportionment of
the amount shall be done in terms of para-16 of the award of the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal dated 08.10.2003.
10. With these observations, the appeal is disposed of with no order
as to costs.
MOOL CHAND GARG,J
APRIL 04, 2011
'anb'
