Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Kanika Arora & Ors
2012 Latest Caselaw 5046 Del

*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                                Reserved on: 8th August, 2012
                                           Pronounced on: 27th August, 2012
+       MAC APP. 141/2012

        ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.            ..... Appellant
                 Through:     Mr. Shashank Sharma, Advocate

                                     Versus

        KANIKA ARORA & ORS                              ..... Respondents
                    Through:           Mr.Vivek Singh, Advocate for the
                                       Respondents No.1& 2 and LRs of
                                       Respondent No.3.

        CORAM:
        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL

                               JUDGMENT

G. P. MITTAL, J.

1. The Appellant Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. impugns a judgment dated 07.12.2011 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal(the Claims Tribunal) whereby a compensation of `23,22,085/- was awarded in favour of the Respondents No.1 to 3 for the death of Pankaj Arora who died in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 28.10.2006.

2. On appreciation of evidence, the Claims Tribunal found that the accident was caused because of wrongful parking of a U.P. Roadways bus No.UP- 80-AC-9858 in the middle of the road and on account of contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. Since the deceased himself was held to have contributed to the accident, the compensation was reduced by 50%.

3. The finding on negligence is not challenged by the Appellant Insurance Company or even by the legal representatives of the deceased.

4. The only ground of challenge is that the Claims Tribunal should not have considered the Income Tax Return for the A.Y.2006-07 which was filed on 09.11.2006, that is, after 10 days of the accident. Reliance is placed on V. Subbulakshmi & Ors. v. S. Lakshmi & Anr., 2008 ACJ 936 where the accident occurred on 07.05.1997 and the Income Tax Return filed on 23.06.1997 was not taken into consideration.

5. I have before me the Income Tax Return for the A.Y. 2006-07 (for previous year 2005-06) Ex.PW1/9. It contains the details of the income tax returned. A perusal of the document Ex.PW1/10 (the details filed with the Income Tax Return) shows that a sum of `10,675/- was deducted at source by Essco Sanitation and a sum of `10,940/- was deducted as TDS by M/s. Jaquar & Co. Ltd. Advance Tax of `2,500/- was deposited by the deceased on 15.12.2005. Only a tax of `3,403/-, out of a total tax of `27,518/- was deposited on 03.11.2006, that is, after the death of the deceased. In the circumstances, it could not have been said that the income was inflated by the legal representatives of the deceased after the death and thus the Claims Tribunal rightly granted the loss of dependency on the basis of Income Tax Return filed on 03.11.2006. In V. Subbulakshmi, it was not laid down as a proposition that the Income Tax Return filed after the death of the deceased cannot be taken into consideration at all. Since there is nothing to suspect the income returned in the Income Tax Return Ex.PW1/9, the Claims Tribunal rightly granted the loss of dependency on the basis of the aforementioned Income Tax Return. There is no ground to interfere with the impugned judgment.

6. The Appeal is devoid of any merit; the same is accordingly dismissed.

7. Statutory amount of `25,000/- shall be refunded to the Appellant Insurance Company.

8. Pending Applications stand disposed of.

(G.P. MITTAL) JUDGE AUGUST 27, 2012 pst