Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt Rajni Jain vs Pawan Kumar Siddharau on 30 May, 2024
Author: Amar Nath Kesharwani
Bench: Amar Nath Kesharwani
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMAR NATH (KESHARWANI)
MISC. APPEAL No. 2697 OF 2023
BETWEEN:-
1. SMT. RAJNI JAIN W/O LATE RAJESH KUMAR
JAIN, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, OCCUPATION
HOUSEWIFE
2. SMT. PUSHPA BAI JAIN W/O LATE VINOD
KUMAR JAIN, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS.
3. KU. SAIPHALI D/O LATE RAJESH KUMAR JAIN,
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS.
4. KU. SHIVANI JAIN D/O LATE RAJESH KUMAR
JAIN, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS.
5. UDIT JAIN S/O LATE RAJESH KUMAR JAIN,
AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS MINOR THROUGH HIS
NATURAL GUARDIAN I.E. MOTHER SMT.
RAJNI JAIN W/O LATE RAJESH KUMAR JAIN.
ALL R/O 623/2, MAIN ROAD, BARGI, DISTRICT
JABALPUR (M.P.)
.....APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI VINEET MISHRA- ADVOCATE )
AND
1. PAWAN KUMAR SIDDHARAU S/O KAUSHAL
CHAND, R/O KOSTA MOHALLA, GARHA,
DISTRICT JABALPUR (M.P.) [DRIVER OF
OFFENDING VEHICLE]
2. NARENDRA UIKE S/O NARMADA PRASAD R/O
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANURAG SONI
Signing time: 30-05-2024
14:46:01
2
139/K, PREM NAGAR, NEAR POST OFFICE,
MADAN MAHAL, DISTRICT JABALPUR (M.P.)
[OWNER OF OFFENDING VEHICLE]
3. THE NEW INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY
LIMITED THROUGH MANAGER, BRANCH
OFFICE, 290, NAPIER TOWN, DISTRICT
JABALPUR (M.P.) [INSURER OF OFFENDING
VEHICLE]
.....RESPONDENTS
(NONE FOR RESPONDENT NOS. 1 AND 2 THOUGH SERVED)
( SHRI GULAB SOHANE- ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.3.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Heard on : 12/03/2024
Passed on : 30/05/2024
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This Misc. appeal having been heard and reserved for orders on 12/03/2024,
coming on for pronouncement on this day, Justice Amar Nath (Kesharwani)
passed the following:
ORDER
This is an appeal filed by the appellants/claimants under Section
173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award dated
23/01/2023 passed by 26th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Jabalpur (M.P.) in MACC No.1971/2019, whereby the learned Claims
Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.13,84,872/- (Thirteen Lakhs Eighty
Four Thousand Eight Hundred Seventy two) which is rounded off as
Rs.13,84,870/- (Thirteen lakhs eighty four thousand eight hundred
seventy) with interest @ 6% per annum to the appellants/claimants for the
death of Rajesh Jain aged about 55 years, who died in motor vehicle
accident. According to claimants i.e. appellants herein, the compensation
awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal is on lower side and hence, needs
to be enhanced.
2. Since, this Appeal is for enhancement in the compensation
amount awarded by the Claims Tribunal, hence the question that arises for
consideration is whether any case for enhancement in compensation
awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal on facts and evidence adduced, is
made out and if so to what extent?
3. It is not necessary to narrate the entire facts in detail, such as how the
accident occurred, who was negligent in driving the offending vehicle,
who is liable for paying compensation etc. It is for the reason that firstly
all these findings are recorded in favour of appellants/claimants by the
Tribunal. Secondly, the findings though recorded in favour of claimants
are not under challenge at the instance of any of the respondents such as
owner/driver or insurance company either by way of filing an appeal or
cross-objection. In this view of the matter, there is no justification to
burden this order by detailing facts on all these issues.
4. As observed supra, it is a death case. On 14/04/2019, Rajesh Jain
aged about 55 years, met with a motor vehicle accident and died leaving
behind his wife, mother and three children, giving rise to filing claim
petition by legal representatives (appellants herein), out of which this
appeal arises seeking enhancement of compensation for his death. The
case was contested by the respondents. Parties adduced evidence. The
Claims Tribunal by impugned award partly allowed the claim petition
filed by claimants and, as stated supra, awarded a sum of Rs.13,84,872/-
(Thirteen lakhs eighty four thousand eight hundred seventy two), which is
rounded off as Rs.13,84,870/- (Thirteen lakhs eighty four thousand eight
hundred seventy) as compensation, breakup of which is as under :-
Rs.10,81,872/- Towards loss of dependency.
Rs.16,500/- Towards funeral expenses
Rs.16,500/- Towards loss of estate
Rs.44,000/- Towards loss of consortium to wife
Rs.44,000/- Towards loss of filial consortium
Rs.1,32,000/- Towards loss of parental consortium
Rs.50,000/- Towards loss of damage to business skill
5. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the learned
Tribunal assessed the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.9,935/- (Nine
thousand nine hundred thirty five) and added 10% towards future loss of
income as per law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi, 2017 (4) MACD 1375.
Learned counsel further submitted that learned Claims Tribunal has
committed grave error in not properly appreciating the income of the
deceased. Appellants have filed copy of income tax return (Ex. P/15) for
the year 2018-2019 and examined Rishab Shrivas (AW-2) Tax Assistant
Officer, who has stated that the deceased filed income tax return Ex.P-13
and Ex.P-15, wherein annual income of deceased is shown as
Rs.3,79,606/- (Three Lakhs Seventy Nine Thousands Six Hundred Six)
and the deceased used to pay income tax and there is no rebuttal in this
regard. It is further submitted that the learned Claims Tribunal should have
taken income tax return into consideration and then ought to have passed
award in favour of the appellants. The deceased was a business man and
income tax return also shows him as business man. The deceased was
earning more income than a labourer, hence learned Tribunal committed
grave error in holding the deceased as an skilled labourer and in assessing
his monthly income as Rs.9,935/- (Nine thousand nine hundred thirty
five). Accordingly, it is prayed that the appeal be allowed and amount of
compensation be enhanced substantially. In support of his contentions,
learned counsel placed reliance on the judgement passed by Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Smt. Anjali & Others Vs. Lokendra Rathod &
Others, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1012.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.3 submits that the
appellants have filed a copy of income tax return only for the year 2018-
2019, not prior or before that, therefore, it cannot be said that deceased
was regular income tax payee, therefore, the amount awarded by the
learned Tribunal on all the heads is just and proper and no case for
enhancement is made out and prayed for dismissal of appeal.
7. I have heard the submissions made by learned counsel for the
parties, perused the record and gone through the citation relied upon.
8. The income tax return (Ex.P-13) for the year 2018-19 shows the
gross total income of deceased as Rs.3,79,606/- (Three lakhs seventy nine
thousand six hundred six), which includes annual income from house
property and interest from saving bank account, which will continue to
generate income even after the death of deceased. Hence, the income from
house property and interest from saving bank account could not be taken
into consideration for calculating the amount towards loss of dependency.
In the income tax return, income from business is shown as Rs.2,62,250/-
(Two lakhs sixty two thousand two hundred fifty) and to prove this
document (Ex.P-13) appellants have examined Rishab Shrivas (AW-2)
Tax Assistant Officer, which was not rebutted by either non-applicant
Nos. 1 & 2 or non-applicant No.3/Insurance Company.
9. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Smt. Anjali (supra) has held
that the income tax return is a statutory document on which reliance be
placed, where available, for computation of annual income of deceased.
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Smt. Anjali (supra) in Para-9 has held
as under :-
9. The Tribunal and the High Court both committed grave
error while estimating the deceased's income by disregarding
the income Tax Return of the Deceased. The appellants had
filed the Income Tax Return (2009-2010) of the deceased,
which reflects the deceased's annual income to be
Rs.1,18,261/-, approx. Rs.9,855/- per month. This Court in
Malarvizhi & Ors. (Supra) has reaffirmed that the Income
Tax Return is a statutory document on which reliance be
placed, where available, for computation of annual income. In
Malarvizhi (Supra), this Court has laid as under :
"10 .... We are in agreement with the High Court
that the determination must proceed on the basis of the
income tax return, where available. The income tax
return is a statutory document on which reliance may
be placed to determine the annual income of the
deceased."
Hence, this Court is of the opinion that the deceased's
annual income be fixed at Rs.1,18,261/-, approx. Rs.9,855/-
per annum keeping in mind the deceased's Income Tax Return
for the year 2009-2010.
10. Hence, considering the documents Ex.P-13 & Ex.P-15 and
placing reliance on the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of Smt. Anjali (supra) and Malarvizhi & Others Vs. United India
Insurance Co. Ltd. & Others, (2020) 4 SCC 228 the loss of income from
business due to death of deceased ought to have been assessed as per
income shown in the income tax return (Ex.P-13 & Ex.P-15). So, looking
to the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the learned Tribunal committed error in assessing
the monthly income of deceased as Rs.9,935/- (Nine thousand nine
hundred thirty five), which as discussed above is considered as
Rs.2,60,000/- (Two lakhs sixty thousand) per annum (after deduction of
income tax).
11. So far as multiplier is concerned, keeping in view the law laid
down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma Vs. DTC, 2009
(6) SCC 121 the same has rightly been applied by the learned Tribunal.
Learned Tribunal added 10% towards future prospects, which also appears
to be just and proper keeping in view the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi
& ors (2017) 16 SCC 680. Similarly, looking to the number of
dependents, deduction of 1/4th towards personal expenses also appears to
be just and proper.
12. As discussed above, considering the yearly income of the
deceased as Rs.2,60,000/- (Two lakhs sixty thousand), 10% of the
assessed income is to be added towards future loss of income, which
comes to Rs.2,86,000/- (Two lakhs eighty six thousand). Upon deducting
1/4th towards personal expenses, the amount comes to Rs.2,14,500/- (Two
lakhs fourteen thousand five hundred) and thereafter multiplier of 11 will
be applied for the purpose of computation of amount towards loss of
dependency, which comes to Rs.23,59,500/- (Twenty three lakhs fifty nine
thousand five hundred). On other heads, amount awarded by the learned
Tribunal appears to be just and proper, which requires no interference.
13. In view of above discussion, appellants/claimants shall be
entitled for the following amount of compensation :-
Rs.23,59,500/- Towards loss of dependency.
Rs.16,500/- Towards funeral expenses
Rs.16,500/- Towards loss of estate
Rs.44,000/- Towards loss of consortium to wife
Rs.44,000/- Towards loss of filial consortium
Rs.1,32,000/- Towards loss of parental consortium (44000 X 3)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rs.26,12,500/- Total
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Thus, the appellants/claimants will be entitled for a total sum of
Rs.26,12,500/- (Twenty six lakhs twelve thousand five hundred) instead of
Rs.13,84,870/- (Thirteen lakhs eighty four thousand eight hundred
seventy). Thus, there shall be enhancement to the tune of Rs.12,27,630/-
(Twelve lakhs twenty seven thousand six hundred thirty), which shall
fetch interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till
the date of actual payment. The enhanced amount be paid within 60 days
from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Other terms and
condition of the award shall remain intact.
15. It is pertinent to mention here that the appellants have valued the
appeal as Rs.10,00,000/- (Ten lakhs) and paid the Court fee as per
valuation, therefore, appellants are directed to pay the Court fees on
additional amount of Rs.2,27,630/- (Two lakhs twenty seven thousand six
hundred thirty) also within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of
certified copy of this order. If the Court fee is not paid within the
stipulated period, then this order will be restricted only up to the amount
of Rs.10,00,000/- (Ten lakhs).
16. With the aforesaid, appeal stands disposed of.
17. Records of the learned Tribunal be sent back alongwith the copy
of this order for information and necessary compliance.
No order as to costs.
(AMAR NATH (KESHARWANI))
JUDGE
skt/as
