Punjab-Haryana High Court
Anita Rani & Ors vs Gurminder Singh & Ors on 2 December, 2022
101
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
IOIN-FAO-4412-2004(O&M)
Date of Decision: December 02, 2022
Anita Rani and others
....Appellants
Versus
Gurminder Singh and others
.....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE ARCHANA PURI
Present:- Mr.Somesh Gupta, Advocate
for the appellants.
Mr.Ravinder Arora, Advocate
for respondent No.3-Insurance Company.
*****
ARCHANA PURI, J
The present appeal has been filed by the appellants-claimants,
thereby, assailing compensation granted, on account of death of Rakesh
Kumar Sharma, vide Award dated 15.10.2003.
On appraisal of the evidence, brought on record, learned
Tribunal concluded about the accident, which took place on 26.04.2000, to
be caused by respondent No.2-Karamjit Singh, driver, while driving the
truck/tempo in a rash and negligent manner and at a high speed, as a result
whereof, Rakesh Kumar Sharma had sustained fatal injuries, in the case in
hand.
As per version of the appellants-claimants, on 26.04.2000, at
about 10.00 pm, Rakesh Kumar Sharma along with two other persons was
1 of 7
going from Sangrur to Malerkotla, in his Santro car and when they reached
near village Sangala, a truck/tempo bearing registration No.PB-10E-9899,
came at a high speed and struck against the car, as a result whereof, Rakesh
Kumar Sharma, sustained serious injuries, which proved fatal.
So far as, the fact of accident and manner of taking place of the
same, is concerned, respondent No.2-Karamjit Singh (driver), admitted
about the same. He has also not disputed about the imputation of rashness
and negligence, on his part, at the relevant time. The owner was proceeded
against ex-parte. However, insurance company had denied taking place of
the accident.
To so substantiate the plea of rashness and negligence, on the
part of respondent No.2-Karamjit Singh, Anita, widow of deceased,
stepped into witness box as PW-1 and had deposed about the death of
Rakesh Kumar Sharma, as a result of the accident in question. Even,
Karamjit Singh-respondent No.2 had admitted about the factum of
accident. He has not also disputed the rashness and negligence on his part,
while causing the accident. He did not step into witness box. Also, it is
evident, from the testimony of PW-2 Vikas Dhir, that the FIR was got
registered, qua the accident in question. In these circumstances, the fact
and manner of taking place of the accident, stands amply established. The
owner has not pursued the claim petition and was proceeded against ex-
parte. Even, no appeal, as such, had been filed by the owner or driver, to
dispute the manner of taking place of the accident. As such, the findings,
so recorded by the Tribunal, has attained finality.
In this backdrop, it is pertinent to mention that appellants-
2 of 7
claimants have questioned the extent of compensation, so granted by
learned Tribunal. Undisputedly, from the evidence on record, it stands
amply established that deceased Rakesh Kumar Sharma was working as
Government Contractor. Also from identity card Ex.P3, it is evident that
he was also a Municipal Councillor.
In the claim petition, the deceased is alleged to be earning
Rs.1.5 lakh, but however, when Anita, widow of deceased, stepped into
witness box as PW-1, she has stated that he used to earn Rs.35,000/- per
month and she produced income tax returns, which are Ex.P1 and P2. She
also proved the identity card of the deceased, of his being Municipal
Councillor, which is Ex.P3. The certificate to prove that he was a
Government Contractor has been proved as Ex.P4.
During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the
appellants has assiduously submitted that learned Tribunal had erroneously
not considered the income tax returns Ex.P1 and P2 and as such, has placed
reliance upon the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rukmani
Jethani and Ors. vs. Gopal Singh and Ors, 2021(4) TAC 23, to assert that
the income tax returns, ought to be taken into consideration, to make an
assessment of the earnings of the deceased. No doubt, as submitted by
learned counsel, the income tax returns, are bound to be taken into
consideration, but however, the timing of filing of the said income tax
returns, ought to be considered. In the aforesaid case law, relied upon by
learned counsel for the appellant, the victim had died on 14.09.2005 and
the income tax returns, for the financial years 2002-2003, 2003-2004,
2004-2005, were produced before the Tribunal. However, those income
3 of 7
tax returns, related to the period, prior to the death of the victim and
precisely, on this account, they ought to be taken into consideration as held
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. However, facts of the case in hand are
distinguishable, as income tax returns Ex.P1 and P2, relate to assessment
years 2000-2001 and 2001-2002 and they were filed, after the death of
Rakesh Kumar Sharma i.e. on 27.10.2000 and 23.05.2001. No doubt, the
income tax returns, could be filed, even after the death of a victim, but
however, they would have been appraised, to make an assessment of the
earnings of the deceased, had there been any income tax return of previous
period also i.e. prior to the date of death of the victim, so that, connectivity
of the extent of earnings of the deceased, as such, could be established.
Since, these income tax returns have been filed, after the death of Rakesh
Kumar Sharma, it has been rightly observed by learned Tribunal that
possibility of the exaggerated earnings, being shown therein, cannot be
ruled out.
Besides the income tax returns, Sh.Sat Pal Bansl, Supdt. Office
of Executive Engineer, Rural Division, Malerkotla, has also been examined
as PW-4, who has deposed about the deceased to be Government
Contractor and he has placed on record Ex.P6, in which, the details of the
payment, made to the deceased, are incorporated. However, very true, as
so pointed out by learned counsel for the appellants that this document
shows about the payment by way of cheque, having been made by the
Department to deceased Rakesh Kumar Sharma and therein, income tax
deduction, so made, is depicted. However, these payments, as so reflected
do not establish the annual income of the deceased. It only reflects the
4 of 7
payments made to the deceased, regarding the work done by him. It is
quite obvious that since the deceased was a Government Contractor, to get
the work done, so assigned to him by the Government, he ought to have
engaged labour as well as purchased various articles, required for the
completion of work and this document, as such, does not bifurcate about
the input made by the deceased for getting the work done and the profit, so
earned by him. As such, these payments, spreading over the number of
years, as reflected in Ex.P6, cannot be taken as ready reckoner to conclude
about the extent of earnings of the deceased. But anyhow, this definitely
gives the input of the circulation of money, at the instance of deceased, vis-
a-vis, his avocation. Admittedly, the deceased, besides being Government
Contractor, was also a Municipal Councillor and therefore, seemingly, he
enjoyed a good social status.
Considering the aforesaid circumstances, in modest estimate,
the earnings of the deceased can conveniently be taken to be Rs.18,000/-
per month. The deceased is also established to be 36 years old, at the time
of accident and keeping in view his age, addition of 40% is to be made as
future prospects as per guidelines laid down in National Insurance
Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others, 2017(4) RCR (Civil) 1009.
Thus, the income of the deceased comes to be Rs.18,000+40%
=Rs.25,200/- per month. The appellants-claimants i.e. widow, son and
daughter, of the deceased, are dependent upon him and considering the
same, 1/3rd of the income is to be deducted, on account of personal
expenses of the deceased and after the said deduction, it comes to be
Rs.16,800/- per month. Thus, the annual dependency, is worked upon to be
5 of 7
Rs.2,01,600/-. Looking at the age of the deceased, as per Smt.Sarla
Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and anr., 2009(3) RCR (Civil) 77,
appropriate multiplier to be applied in the present case is '15' and
compensation granted towards of loss of dependency, as such, comes to be
Rs.30,24,000/-.
As per Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs.
Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram, 2018(18) SCC 130, each of the appellants-
claimants are entitled to compensation under the head of 'loss of
consortium'. As per Pranay Sethi's case (supra), the extent of consortium
payable, is stated to be Rs.40,000/- and it is further held that the aforesaid
amount should be enhanced by 10% after every three years. As the said
judgment is dated 31.10.2017, so there has to be enhancement of 10%,
which comes to be Rs.44,000/-. In the light of the same, appellants-
claimants No.1 to 3, are entitled to compensation, on the count of 'loss of
consortium' to the extent of Rs.44,000/- each, which comes to be
Rs.1,32,000/-.
Furthermore, as per Pranay Sethi's case (supra), a sum of
Rs.15,000/- was to be paid as 'funeral expenses' and 'loss of estate' each,
which requires enhancement to the extent of 10% after every three years,
which comes to be Rs.16,500/- under each head.
Working upon the same, the total of the compensation is
worked upon as Rs.30,24,000 + Rs.1,32,000 + Rs.16,500 + Rs.16,500/-,
total whereof, is Rs.31,89,000/-.
As such, the enhanced compensation, after the compensation
awarded by the Tribunal comes to Rs.31,89,000-Rs.7,68,000=
6 of 7
Rs.24,21,000/-. Out of the said enhanced amount, a sum of Rs.7 lakh each,
be disbursed to appellants-claimants No.2 and 3-son and daughter of
deceased and residue amount of Rs.10,21,000/-, be disbursed to appellant-
claimant No.1-widow of deceased. The remaining terms of the impugned
Award shall remain the same.
With the above observations, the appeal stands allowed.
December 02, 2022 (ARCHANA PURI)
Vgulati JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes
Whether reportable Yes/No
7 of 7
