Delhi High Court
Mamta & Ors. vs Mundruddin & Ors on 10 October, 2014
$ -8
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision:10th October, 2014
+ MAC.APP. 335/2012
MAMTA & ORS. ..... Appellants
Through Mr. Navneet Goyal, Advocate
versus
MUNDRUDDIN & ORS ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate for R-2
Mr. J.P. N. Shahi, Advocate for R-
3/Insurance Company
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH
JAYANT NATH, J. (ORAL)
1. The present appeal is filed by the appellants for seeking enhancement
of compensation by the appellants.
2. The brief facts are that on 29.01.2009 deceased Shri Dalbir Singh,
was returning from Khatu Shyamji Mandir in a Maruti Wagon-R with his
friends. The deceased was sitting on the front left seat alongside the driver.
When they reached near Atlas cut on NH-8 (Jaliyawas), Kasola, Rewari,
Haryana, the car was hit by the offending truck said to be driven in a rash
and negligent manner at a high speed. Due to the forceful impact, Shri
Dalbir Singh died and other occupants of the car were injured.
3. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal awarded a total
compensation of Rs.6,70,720/- to the dependants of the deceased Shri Dalbir
Singh, details of which are as follows:
Loss of dependency Rs.6,30,720/-
Funeral Expenses Rs.10,000/-
Loss of consortium Rs.10,000/-
Loss of estate Rs.10,000/-
Loss of Love and Affection Rs.10,000/-
Total Rs.6,70,720/-
4. Learned counsel for the appellant seeks enhancement of the
compensation awarded. He submits that the Tribunal has wrongly discarded
the copies of income tax return placed on record by the appellants. It is
urged that the appellant was carrying on business in the name and style of
M/s D.B.S. Trading Company and was filing his income tax returns vide
Ex. PW1/5, PW1/6 and PW1/6A. Despite these income tax returns on
record, the Tribunal has ignored the returns on the ground that no officer
from the Income Tax Department was summoned and that no cogent or
reliable proof has been filed to show that the M/s D.B.S. Trading Company
was being run by the deceased. The Tribunal hence is said to have
erroneously assessed the income of the deceased based on the minimum
wages of a matriculate.
5. It is further urged that the Tribunal has not awarded the future
prospects on the assessed income of the deceased. Lastly learned counsel
appearing for the appellants submits that compensation under the non-
pecuniary heads is meagre.
6. As far as the issue of enhancement of assessed income of the
deceased is concerned, the Tribunal did not accept the income tax returns as
no proof has been filed by the appellants showing that M/s D.B.S. Trading
Company was being run by the deceased and is filing its income tax
returns. Even no officer from Income Tax Department was summoned.
7. Perusal of the evidence shows that the appellant No.1/PW1 in her
evidence by way of affidavit has pointed out that the deceased was
running his business in the name and style of M/s D.B.S. Trading Company.
She has exhibited the registration certificate of the concern under Central
Sales Tax Act Ex. PW1/1, the form DVAT of Department of Value Added
Tax Ex.PW1/2. She has stated that the deceased was a building material
supplier. Apart from exhibiting the income tax returns she has exhibited
Ex. PW1/4 the PAN card photocopy. She has also exhibited copy of
Purchase Order Ex. PW1/7 issued by Simplex Infrastructure Limited which
is said to be a company attached with Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Project,
which was one of the main customers of the deceased. She has also pointed
out that deceased was having his own maruti car bearing registration
No.DL-9 C-L-3974 in which he was travelling when the accident took place.
In her cross- examination she has denied that her husband was not running
any business in the name of M/s D.B.S. Trading Company. She has
reiterated that he used to pay income tax and income tax returns have been
filed.
8. A perusal of the various documents placed on record by the appellant
No.1 shows that the registration certificate issued under the Central Sales
Tax (Registration & Turnover) Rules, 1957 (Ex. PW1/1) is in the name of
M/s D.B.S. Trading Company and bears the address of the company as 227
A Dera Village, Mehrauli New Delhi-110074. The same is the address in
the form of Department of Value Added Tax Ex. PW1/2. Various other
documents including the income tax returns Ex.PW1/5, PW1/6, PW1/6A
and also Confirmatory Purchase Order issued by Simplex Infrastructure
Limited Ex. PW1/7 to D.B.S. Trading Company gives this address which is
common in all the documents filed on record. This is the same address at
which the claimants are residing. The Tribunal erroneously ignored the
testimony of PW1. In my opinion there is enough evidence on record to
show that the deceased was the proprietor of D.B.S. Trading Company
having its office at 227 A Dera Village, New Delhi. There are hence no
grounds to ignore the income tax returns.
9. Ex. PW1/5 is the income tax return of the deceased for the
assessment year 2007-08 showing net income of Rs.1,01,893/- less
Rs.196/- paid as tax. Ex.PW1/6 is for the assessment year 2008-09, which
shows that total income tax of Rs. 1,14,774/- less tax of Rs.500/- and
Ex.PW1/6A is the income tax return for the assessment year 2009-10
showing return total income of Rs.1,54,581/-less tax of Rs.500/-. The
average of the three years assessment years comes to Rs.1,23,750/-. I
modify the award and assess the income of the deceased at Rs.1,23,750/-.
10. Coming to the issue of future prospects, in case of Rajesh & Ors. vs.
Rajbir Singh & Ors.(2013) 9 SCC 54, the Supreme Court held that in the
case of self employed or those on fixed wages, when the victim is below 40
years an addition of 50% should be made in the wages for the purpose of
computing loss of future earnings.
11. In the case of Smt.Savita vs. Bindar Singh & Ors., (2014) 4 SCC
505, the Supreme Court was of the view that in the case of self employed or
those engaged on fixed wages, 30% increase in income over period of time
would be appropriate. In the case of V.Mekala vs. M.Malathi & Anr., 2014
ACJ 1441, the Supreme Court in the case of injury to a student who was
studying in Class XI aged 16 years had awarded 50% increase for future
prospects.
12. Further, this court in the case of ICICI Lombard General Insurance
Company vs. Angrej Singh & Ors. in MAC APP. 846/2011 in judgment
dated 30.09.2013 had gone into this issue and had noted the judgments of
the Supreme Court in the case of Smt.Sarla Verma and Ors. vs. Delhi
Transport Corporation and Anr. (2009) 6 SCC 121, Reshma Kumari &
Ors. vs. Madan Mohan & Anr. 2013 ACJ 1253 and other judgments and
concluded that the Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh & Ors. vs. Rajbir
Singh & Ors., (supra) has held that the future prospects should be given to
persons who are self-employed or on fixed wages.
13. I may further note that this court in MAC APP. 761/2012 Rakesh and
Ors. vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. in judgment dated
02.04.2014 had in a case where the deceased was 24 years old added 50%
to the income towards future prospects for computing loss of dependency
based on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh & Ors.
vs. Rajbir Singh & Ors.(supra). Against the said judgment the appellant had
filed an SLP before the Supreme Court. As stated above, the said SLP
No.5612/2014 was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 10.10.2014.
14. The assessed income of the deceased is liable to the enhanced. I
enhance the assessed income of the deceased by 50% keeping in view that
deceased was 31 years of age on the date of the accident.
15. In the light of the above, loss of dependency would come to
Rs.22,27,500/- (Rs.12,3750 + 50% -1/4th x 16)
16. On non-pecuniary compensation, the Tribunal has awarded
Rs.10,000/- for loss of consortium, Rs.10,000/- for loss of love and
affection. I increase the same respectively to Rs.1,00,000/- each.
17. The total compensation would now be payable is as follows:-
Loss of dependency Rs.22,27,500/-
Funeral Expenses Rs.10,000/-
Loss of consortium Rs.1,00,000/-
Loss of estate Rs.10,000/-
Loss of love and affection Rs.1,00,000/-
Total Rs.24,47,500/-
18. The Respondent no.3/Insurance Company may deposit the additional
compensation amount along with interest @ 7.5 % p.a. from the date of
filing of the claim petition till the date of receipt of the said amount. The
Tribunal shall release the additional compensation proportionately as
directed in the award. However the sum payable to respondent Nos. 2 and 3
who are minors would be kept in a fixed deposit till they attain the age of 21
years. The interest on the fixed deposit shall be receivable by appellant
No.1 at quarterly rest. Fixed deposit shall be released to the appellant Nos. 2
and 3 respectively on attaining age of 21 years of age.
19. The appeal stands disposed of.
JAYANT NATH, J.
October 10, 2014
An
