Indrashan Devi vs Rana Arun Kumar Singh
2021 Latest Caselaw 3881 Jhar

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                             M.A. No. 58 of 2019
                                         ------

1. Indrashan Devi

2. Lalan Singh

3. Gulshan Singh ...Appellant(s).

Versus

1. Rana Arun Kumar Singh

2. M/s National Insurance Company Limited, through Divisional Manager, Sheela Sadan, City Centre, Sector IV, Bokaro ... Respondent(s) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN.

Through: Video Conferencing

------

          For the Appellant(s)           : Mr. Nikhil Ranjan , Advocate.
          For the Respondent             : Mr. Pratyush Kumar, Advocate

07/18.10.2021:   Heard both the parties.

2. The appellants were the claimants before the Tribunal. They have filed this appeal praying for enhancement of the compensation amount awarded vide award dated 26.11.2018 passed by Principal District Judge cum MVACT, Bokaro in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 37 of 2016.

3. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that the Tribunal had

assessed the income of the deceased to be Rs. 13,300/- per month which is the

salary the deceased was drawing from his employer. He submits that the

deceased was also earning Rs. 10,000/- per month from transport business which

has not been considered by the Tribunal while assessing the amount of

compensation. He submits that the income tax returns for the year 2010-11, 2011-

12, 2012-13, 2014-15, 2015-16 were filed by the claimants to show the exact

income of the deceased. He submits that the income tax return having statutory

force should have been considered by the Tribunal. He further submits that in

terms of the Judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

National Insurance Company Ltd. Versus Pranay Sethi and others reported

in (2017) 16 SCC 680 consortium has not been awarded. He submits that only Rs.

30,000/- under conventional head has been awarded in place of Rs. 70,000/-.

Lastly, he submits that interest from the date of filing of this application has not

been granted. It is the submission of the claimants that the reason for not granting

interest has also not been recorded in the impugned order. These are the only

grounds raised by the appellants in this appeal during hearing wherein they have sought to enhance the amount of compensation.

4. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company submits that the

Tribunal has correctly assessed the income of the deceased considering the

salary certificate. He submits that the appellants have failed to produce any

document to suggest that deceased was having a business of transportation. He

submits that in absence of any cogent evidence that the appellant was having a

business of transportation, the Tribunal correctly assessed the income of the

deceased as Rs. 13,300/- per month which is his salary. On the issue of interest

learned counsel submitted that court below felt it proper not to grant any interest

from the date of application and there are no good ground available to the

appellants to challenge the same. So far as compensation under the conventional

head is concerned, he submits that the Judgment delivered by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Versus Pranay

Sethi and others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 would govern this issue.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and respondent. After going

through the award and the lower court record, I find that the fact of accident and

the involvement of the offending vehicle bearing registration no. JH 09Z 5705 is

not disputed. It is also not disputed that the said vehicle was duly insured with the

National Insurance Company Ltd. and the policy was subsisting on the date of the

accident. It is also not disputed that there was no violation of the terms and

condition of policy. The age of the deceased is also not disputed nor is the

dependency. The parties also accepted that the multiplier has been correctly

applied.

6. In view of the aforesaid admitted facts the only dispute which remains is,

what would be the correct income of the deceased. The appellants have exhibited

several documents to prove the income. It is the case of the claimants that the

deceased was a manager in Sumangal Motors and was earning a salary of Rs.

13,000 to 13,300/- per month. The salary slip for the month of January 2016 is

marked as exhibit 6 which shows that the deceased was getting Rs. 13,300/- per

month and Rs. 403 was deducted from the aforesaid amount as PPF. Be it noted that the accident had taken place on 11/12 February, 2016. Further the appellants

have brought on record the copies of the income tax return for the assessment

year 2011-12, 2012-13, 2014-15, 2015-16. The bank pass-book has also been

exhibited. These returns were marked as exhibit 8, 9,10,11,12. The income tax

returns of the year 2010-11 (exhibit 8) shows the annual income of the deceased

to be Rs.1,59,900. Similarly for the assessment year 2011-12 the income is Rs.

1,62,100, for 2012-13 it is Rs. 1,93, 304, for 2014-15 it is Rs. 2,16,650 and for

2015-16 it is Rs. 2,54,180. It is the case of the appellants that the deceased was

earning the aforesaid amount through salary as he was a manager in Sumangal

Motor and was also earning a sum of Rs. 10,000/- per month from the business

of transport. The Tribunal disbelieved the case of the claimants that the deceased

was involved in transport business on the ground that the claimants did not

produce any documentary evidence in proof of the same. The Tribunal, thus, had

only considered the salary certificate. Now before this Court there are two

documents showing the income of the deceased:-

1. Salary Certificate

2. Income Tax Returns

7. It is the case of the claimants that the deceased was earing some extra

income by way of some transport business. Though, the appellants failed to prove

the same by any documents yet the income tax return cannot be ignored. The

annual income of the deceased will come to Rs. 1,59,900/- if his salaried income

per month is calculated as Rs. 13,300/-, which has been accepted by the Tribunal.

When I go through the Income tax return, I find that the return shows much higher

income than the salaried income. The income as per the income tax returns shows

a gradual increase of income from assessment year 2010-11 onwards. This clearly

suggests that the deceased was not only dependent of the salaried income but

had some income from the other sources also. The income shown in the

assessment year 2014-15 of the deceased as Rs. 2,16,650/-. These returns were

filed immediately after the death of the deceased. The return of 2014-15 and 2015-

16 uploaded on the same date that is immediately after 2016 i.e. after the death of the deceased. The return filed in the year 2015-16 was for annual income of

Rs. 2,54,180/-. Since both the returns were electronically uploaded on 10.03.2016

i.e. immediately after the death of the deceased, it would be proper to consider the

return of the year 2014-15, which shows a lesser income than that of assessment

year 2015-16 for the purpose of assessing the income of the deceased. Non

consideration of these ITRs by the Tribunal which were filed, was not proper. The

Tribunal should have considered the ITRs, whose authenticity cannot be doubted.

Further when income tax return shows that the deceased was earning more than

his salary, for the purpose of assessing compensation, the income tax return

should have been preferred over the salary certificate. Thus, for assessing

compensation, income of the deceased is taken to be Rs. 2,16,650/-.

8. The Tribunal has not awarded consortium in this case. Two of the claimants

are the parents of the deceased. As per the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in the case of New India Assurance Company Ltd. Versus Somwati and

others reported in (2020) 9 SCC 644 claimants are entitled to get the Filial

consortium. Thus the claimants are entitled to receive further amount of Rs.

40,000/- on account of Filial consortium, as under conventional head total amount

of Rs. 70,000/- has to be paid as per the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in

the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Versus Pranay Sethi and others

reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680.

9. It is the case of the claimants that no interest has been awarded by the

Tribunal. In terms of Section 171 the claimants are entitled to receive interest. No

reason has been assigned in the award as to why interest has been refused. In

this case, when I go through the order sheet I find that the case was filed on

20.04.2016. The case was admitted on 18.05.2016 and notices were ordered to

be issued. Notices were filed within time and the same was issued also. The

opposite parties appeared in this case and on 16.12.2016 the Order under Section

140 of the Motor Vehicle Act was passed by the Tribunal. The Insurance Company

deposited the cheque of Rs. 50,000/- on 16.03.2017, thereafter the case

proceeded. The claimants started adducing evidence from 15.07.2017. On 07.09.2017 the matter was referred by the Tribunal for mediation. The claimant's

close their evidence on 23.02.2018 and ultimately award was delivered on

26.11.2018. After going through the award and the order sheet, I find that there

was no delay cause by the claimants to debarred them from receiving the interest.

Thus, this Court feels that 7 % interest per annum from the date of filing of the

claim application before the Tribunal should be awarded to the claimants. Now on

basis of what has been held above, if the compensation is reassessed it will be as

follows:-

Rs. 2,16,650/- x 17(multiplier)= Rs. 36,83,050/-

Rs. 36,83,050- 50% (deduction as deceased was bachelor)= Rs.

18,41,525/-.

Rs. 18,41,525 + 40 % (future prospect) = Rs. 25,78,135/-

Rs. 25,78,135 + Rs. 70,000/- (Conventional Head) = (Total) Rs. 26,48,135/-.

Just compensation in this Case is Rs. 26,48,135/-.

10. The said amount will carry an interest at the rate of 7 % per annum from

2016 till the date amount is disbursed. Out of the said amount Rs. 50,000/- paid

under Section 140 should be deducted.

11. The Insurance Company is directed to calculate the amount of interest and

pay the balance amount to the claimants within two months from today. This

appeal is allowed accordingly.

Rajnish/c.p. 2                                              (ANANDA SEN, J.)