Delhi High Court
Rukmani Jain & Ors. vs L. Srikant Nayak And Ors. on 16 July, 2012
Author: G.P. Mittal
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on: 9th July, 2012
Pronounced on: 16th July, 2012
+ MAC.APP. 647/2010
RUKMANI JAIN & ORS. ..... Appellants
Through: Mr. Ram N. Sharma, Adv.
versus
L. SRIKANT NAYAK AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. D.K.Sharma, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
JUDGMENT
G. P. MITTAL, J.
1. The Appeal is for enhancement of compensation of
`16,25,297/- awarded in favour of the Appellants for the death
of Manik Chand Jain who died in a motor vehicle accident
which occurred on 23.05.2003.
2. During inquiry before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the
Claims Tribunal) it was claimed that the deceased was aged
about 46 years. He was earning `25,000/- per month from the
business of lubricants carried out by him in the name and style
of M/s. Lubex India. It was alleged that the deceased Manik
Chand Jain was also carrying out business being Karta of HUF
in the name of M/s. Manik Chand Jain and Company.
3. On appreciation of evidence, the Claims Tribunal took the
deceased's income from both the businesses to be `1,58,492/-,
deducted one-fourth towards the personal and living expenses
and applied the multiplier of '13' to compute the loss of
dependency as `15,45,297/- (1,58,492/- - 39,623/- (being one-
fourth) = 1,18,869/- x 13).
4. The Claims Tribunal declined to grant any increase on account
of future prospects as the deceased was a self-employed person.
The Claims Tribunal made a provision of `50,000/- towards
transportation of the dead body from Erode, Tamil Nadu, where
the death took place and also for the last rites. A sum of
`10,000/- each towards loss to estate, loss of consortium and
loss of love and affection was awarded to compute the overall
compensation of `16,25,297/-.
5. Following contentions are raised on behalf of the Appellants
(the Claimants):-
(i) Since there were three members of HUF, the Appellant's
share should have been taken as one-third instead of one-
fourth as taken by the Claims Tribunal.
(ii) Since the deceased's income from business was
increasing, the Appellants were entitled to increase of
30% in the deceased's income to compute the loss of
dependency.
6. I have very carefully gone through the Income Tax Returns
(ITRs) filed by M/s. Lubex India alleged to be the Sole
Proprietorship concern of the deceased and of Manak Chand
Jain and Company (HUF). A perusal of the ITRs shows that a
large component of the income was from other sources. What
were these other sources, was not disclosed by the Appellants?
Still an answer is available from the ITRs themselves. In as
much as, a deduction of `12,000/- under Section 80L (income
from bank interest, dividend, etc. as per the Income Tax Act) in
the Assessment Year (AY) 2001-2002 in respect of Ms. Manik
Chand Jain and Company (Ex.PW-1/7), a deduction of `9,000/-
from the ITR of AY-2002-03 (Ex.PW-1/8), a deduction of
`12,000/- under Section 80L from the income in the ITR for the
AY 2003-04 (Ex.PW-1/9) would reveal that the income from
other sources was mainly from interest and dividends. This
income would continue to the LRs even after the death of
Manak Chand Jain.
7. Income from business has been reflected in the ITRs filed by
M/s. Lubex India as well as by M/s. Manik Chand Jain and
Company. The same are extracted hereunder in the tabulated
form:-
Income of the deceased from the sole Proprietorship
Assessment Total Income Income from Ex.
Year business
2000-01 90,637/- 31,882/- PW-/16
2001-02 1,24,314/- 20,917/- PW-1/7A
2002-03 1,25,871/- 75,172/- PW-1/8A
TOTAL 1,27,971/-
Income of the deceased from HUF
Assessment Total Income Income from Ex.
Year business
2001-02 91,011 91,011 PW-1/7
2002-03 1,30,461/- 1,30,461/- PW-1/8
2003-04 1,35,611/- 1,18,303/- PW-1/9
8. On the basis of the income reflected in the tabulated form
hereinabove, the average income from the Sole Proprietorship
business comes to `42,657/- (1,27,971/- ÷ 3 per year). On
making addition of 30% towards the future prospects assuming
that there was a quantum jump in the income from 2001-02 and
2002-03 and taking it as an exception to Sarla Verma (Smt.) &
Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121,
the loss of dependency on account of Sole Proprietorship
business comes to ` 5,40,677/- (42,657/- + 30% x 3/4 x 13).
9. Similarly, even if, the Appellants' contention raised during the
hearing is accepted and the additional document placed on the
paper book showing the list of the members of HUF on the date
of the death being 3 is accepted; the average HUF income is
taken as `43,487/- and on making addition of 30%, the loss of
dependency would come to `5,51,197/- (43,487/- + 30% x 3/4 x
13).
10. The overall loss of dependency thus comes to `10,91,874/-
(5,40,677/- + 5,51,197/-) as against a sum of `15,45,297/-
awarded by the Claims Tribunal.
11. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that the compensation
awarded is niggardly or meager. On the other hand, it is evident
that if income from other sources as reflected in the ITRs is
deducted, the compensation awarded is very liberal. However,
in the absence of any Appeal by the Respondent Insurance
Company, I would not interfere with the same.
12. It is evident that the Appeal is frivolous. The same is
accordingly dismissed.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
JULY 16, 2012
vk
