Delhi High Court
Ramesh Rani & Ors. vs Dharmender Kumar & Ors. on 10 January, 2012
Author: G.P. Mittal
$~1
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 10th January, 2012
+ FAO NO.111/2003
RAMESH RANI & ORS. ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Navneet Goyal with Ms.
Suman N. Rawat, Adv.
versus
DHARMENDER KUMAR & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
JUDGMENT
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
1. The Appellants who are the legal heirs of Ramji Das Kapur
seeks enhancement of compensation in respect of his death in a
motor accident, which took place on 15.04.1996. The
Appellants grievance is that the deceased owned three Tempos
as proved by PW-4 yet the Tribunal took the minimum wages of
an unskilled worker i.e. ` 2,100/- and calculated the loss of
dependency by applying the multiplier of '5' and deducting one
third towards the personal expenses. After adding ` 10,000/-
towards non-pecuniary damages, the Tribunal awarded an
overall compensation of ` 1,11,000/-. The Appellants urge that
Ramji Das Kapur owned three Tempos and the Tribunal erred
in taking the deceased's income to be just ` 2,100/- per month.
The learned counsel for the Appellant relied on Section 44 AE
of the Income Tax Act, which provides that income of a
Transporter, who owns a goods carriage other than a heavy
vehicle would be estimated ` 1,800/- for every month or part of
the month, during which goods carriage was owned by the
assessee. It is not in dispute that the deceased Ramji Das Kapur
was not paying any income tax. The provisions of Section 44
AE was only to keep check on persons owning a goods vehicle
from evading income tax. Obviously if the deceased had
income of more than ` 40,000/- per annum on the date of the
accident, he was liable to pay tax. It has come in the evidence
of PW-2 Lokesh Kapur that the Tempos were sold after the
death of Ramji Das Kapur. In the circumstances, I would assess
the deceased's income for supervision of the three Tempos to be
` 40,000/- per annum. None of the Appellants (Claimants) were
financially dependent on the deceased thus I would deduct 50%
of the deceased's income towards his personal living expenses
and by applying the multiplier of '7' at the deceased's age i.e.
64 years, the loss of dependency or loss of estate would come to
` 40,000/- ÷ 2 x 7 = ` 1,40,000/-. The Appellants would further
be entitled to a sum of ` 20,000/- towards loss of love and
affection and ` 10,000/- towards funeral expenses. The overall
compensation is enhanced to ` 59,000/-, which shall carry
interest @ 7.5% per annum for 2 ½ years till the award by the
Tribunal and thereafter from the date of the award i.e.
12.11.2002 till the date of payment. The enhanced amount shall
be deposited within 30 days with the Registrar General, which
shall be released to the Appellants in the same proportion as
awarded by the Tribunal forthwith.
2. The appeal is allowed in above terms.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
JANUARY 10, 2012
hs
