Delhi High Court
Lala Ram Gupta & Anr vs Sandeep Kumar & Ors on 18 April, 2012
Author: G.P. Mittal
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 18th April, 2012
+ MAC.APP. 275/2011
LALA RAM GUPTA & ANR ..... Appellant
Through Mr. Vivek Singh, Advocate
versus
SANDEEP KUMAR & ORS ..... Respondent
Through Ms. Neerja Sachdeva, Advocate
for R-3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
JUDGMENT
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
1. The Appeal is for enhancement of compensation of ` 8,27,000/-
awarded for the death of Sanjeev Gupta who died in a motor
accident which occurred on 28.02.2008.
2. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal)
accepted the deceased's income as per the Income Tax Return
(ITR), deducted 50% towards his personal and living expenses
(since he was a bachelor), applied the multiplier of '13'
(appropriate to the age of the deceased's mother), to compute
the loss of dependency as ` 7,96,666/-.
3. The Claims Tribunal further awarded a sum of `10,000/- each
towards Loss of Love and Affection, Loss to Estate and Funeral
Expenses and assessed the overall compensation as `8,27,000/-.
4. The sole ground of challenge raised during the hearing of the
Appeal is that the deceased received an income of
`2,01,879.96P in the financial year 2006-2007 (Assessment
Year 2007-2008) which was clear from the TDS Certificate
issued by the Life Insurance Corporation (LIC) to the deceased
and which was filed with the ITR, relied on by the Claims
Tribunal and was duly proved on record.
5. It is urged that either there was a clerical mistake in mentioning
the gross total income or perhaps the deceased wanted to evade
the tax when he mentioned the gross income as `1,22,564/-
instead of `2,01,879/-.
6. The document regarding the deduction of TDS on income from
the insurance commission is not in dispute. Deceased sought
refund of the TDS amount of `20,592/- deducted by the LIC
which is reflected in the ITR filed with the Income Tax
Department on 30.07.207.
7. I need not go into the question whether the deceased wanted to
evade income tax or there was any clerical mistake. It is,
however, amply proved that the deceased had an income of `
2,01,879/- on account of the insurance commission during the
relevant year. The Appellants were entitled to the loss of
dependency on the basis of the said income. There was liability
of income tax of `14,300/- on the said income of `2,01,879/-.
8. Thus, the loss of dependency comes to `12,19,263/- (2,01,879/-
- 14,300/- (income tax) x 1/2 x 13).
9. On adding the notional sum of ` 30,000/- towards non-
pecuniary heads as awarded by the Claims Tribunal, the overall
compensation comes to ` 12,49,263/-.
10. The overall compensation is thus enhanced from ` 8,27,000/- to
` 12,49,263/-.
11. The enhanced compensation of ` 4,22,263/- shall carry interest
@ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the Petition till the
date of payment in this Court.
12. The enhanced amount along with interest shall be deposited by
the Respondent Insurance Company in UCO Bank, Delhi High
Court Branch, in the name of the Appellants within six weeks,
which shall be equally apportioned in their favour and shall be
held in fixed deposit for a period of three years.
13. The Appeal is allowed in above terms.
14. Pending applications also stand disposed of.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
APRIL 18, 2012
vk
