Delhi High Court
Reshma Sachdeva And Ors vs Jaswant Singh And Ors on 15 May, 2012
Author: G.P. Mittal
35 & 36$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 15th May, 2012
+ MAC.APP. 1112/2011
RESHMA SACHDEVA AND ORS .... Appellant
Through Mr. Ashok Popli, Advocate for
appellants/claimants.
versus
JASWANT SINGH AND ORS ..... Respondent
Through Mr. Jitendra Kumar, Advocate for
appellant.
Mr. Manish Maini, Advocate with Mr.
Sameer Nandwani, Advocate for R-9.
+ MAC.APP. 1141/2011
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD ..... Appellant
Through Mr. Jitendra Kumar, Advocate for
appellant.
Mr. Manish Maini, Advocate with
Mr. Sameer Nandwani, Advocate.
versus
RESHMA SACHDEVA & ORS ..... Respondent
Through Mr. Ashok Popli, Advocate for
appellants/claimants.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
JUDGMENT
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
1. These two Cross Appeals arise out of a judgment dated 13th
September, 2011 whereby the compensation of ` 9,80,000/- was
awarded for the death of deceased Sh. Manohar Sachdeva who
died in an accident which occurred on 13th June, 2008.
2. In MAC APP No. 1112/2011 the Appellants who were the
Claimants before the Claims Tribunal are seeking enhancement
of compensation, whereas in MAC APP No. 1141/2011 the
New India Assurance Company who was Respondent No.3
before the Claims Tribunal seeks reduction of compensation.
3. Since the finding on question of negligence is not challenged
by the Respondents, I am not expected to go into that finding.
4. It is urged by the learned counsel for the Appellant that the
Appellant proved the Income Tax Returns for the Assessment
Years 2005-2006, 2006-2007, 2007-2008 as Ex. PW 1/3
(Colly). The Claims Tribunal erred in rejecting the same
merely on the ground that there was some discrepancy in the
PAN number mentioned in the ITRs. It is also stated that the
compensation awarded towards loss of love and affection is on
the lower side.
5. On the other hand, it is urged by the learned counsel for the
Respondent New India Assurance Company that the Claims
Tribunal rightly declined to believe the ITRs as there was
discrepancy in the PAN number. The Claims Tribunal erred in
making addition of 50% on account of inflation. It is stated that
the inflation is built in the multiplier. The compensation
awarded of ` 9,80,000/- argues the ld. Counsel is liable to be
reduced.
6. I have gone through the photocopies of the Income Tax Returns
Ex. PW 1/3 (Colly). Originals had been produced by the
learned counsel for the Appellant at the time of the hearing.
Apart from the three Assessment Years, an acknowledgment of
filing Income Tax Return for the Assessment Year 2007-2008
has also been shown.
7. It is true that there is some discrepancy in the PAN Number
mentioned in the Income Tax Return for the Assessment Year
2007-2008 and also in the earlier Assessment Years. It is
important to note that on the Income Tax Returns GIR No/Pan
Number is mentioned and therefore on some of the Returns it
could be GIR Number on others it could be PAN Number. It is
also noticed that sometimes more than one PAN Number is
issued by the Income Tax Department on successive
applications due to non-receipt of the PAN Number on an
earlier application.
8. PW 1 Smt. Reshma Sachdeva, (the deceased's widow) testified
that the deceased was earning `13,000/- per month. She was
unable to produce any documentary evidence in support of the
income of `13,000/- per month, but there was enough
documentary evidence to show that the deceased's income was
of `1,01,620/- for the Assessment Year 2005-2006, `99,580/-
for the assessment year 2006-2007 and `1,26,220/- for the
Assessment Year 2007-2008. I do not see any conceivable
reason to disbelieve the income for the three successive years
placed on record by the Claimant.
9. A perusal of the Income Tax Returns for the three years reveal
that the deceased's income was fluctuating. In the
circumstances, I would take the average income of three years
to compute the loss of dependency. Average income comes to
`1,09,140/-(`1,01,620/- + `99,580/- + `1,26,220 / 3=`1,09,140).
Since the deceased's income was fluctuating, the Appellants
would not be entitled to any addition on account of future
prospects. Thus loss of dependency comes to `11,45,970
(`1,09,140 X 3/4 X 14)
10.The Claims Tribunal awarded a sum of `10,000/- towards love
and affection. Loss of love and affection can never be measured
in terms of money. Thus, uniformity has to be adopted by the
Courts while granting non-pecuniary damages. The Supreme
Court in Sunil Sharma v. Bachitar Singh (2011) 11 SCC 425
and in Baby Radhika Gupta v. Oriental Insurance Company
Limited (2009) 17 SCC 627 granted ` 25,000/- (in total to all the
claimants) under the head of loss of love and affection. Thus, I
would enhance the compensation under this head to ` 25,000/-.
11.On adding the notional sum of `50,000/- i.e. `25,000/- for loss
of love and affection, `10,000/- for loss of consortium, `5,000/-
for funeral expenses and `10,000/- for loss to estate, the overall
compensation thus comes to `11,95,970/-.
12.The enhanced compensation of `2,15,970/- shall carry interest
@ 7.5% from the date of filing of the petition till date of deposit
with UCO Bank, Delhi High Court Branch in the name of Smt.
Reshma Sachdeva, the deceased's widow and the First
Appellant in MAC 1112/2011. The enhanced compensation
shall enure for the benefit of the First Appellant.
13.In the result MAC APP 1112/2011 is allowed in the above
terms.
14.MAC Appeal No. 1141/2011 is dismissed.
15.The Appellant Insurance Company shall be entitled to refund of
the statutory amount of `25,000/-.
16.The amount in MAC APP 1141/2011 shall be released in favour
of Respondents No. 1 to 4 in terms of the order passed by the
Claims Tribunal.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
MAY 15, 2012
pkv
