Smt.Hasina And Ors vs Naresh Kumar And Anr
2021 Latest Caselaw 8225 Raj

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 8225 Raj
Judgement Date : 25 March, 2021

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Smt.Hasina And Ors vs Naresh Kumar And Anr on 25 March, 2021

Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 342/2004

1. Smt. Hasina wife of Hussain Bohra, aged 35 years,

2. Ms. Jujar d/o Hussain Bohra, aged 11 years,

3. Shri Hofeja S/o Hussain Bohra, aged 05 years, Appellant No.02-03 are minors through natural guardian appellant No.1 and resident of Calcutta Veubwell, 39 Station Road, Calcutta

----Appellants Versus

1. Shri Naresh Kumar son of Munge Ram, Pandit Paliwal, resident of 33/26, Brahmnagar, P.S. and District Sonipat (Hariyana).

2. The New India Insurance Company Limited, Udaipur.

                                                                ----Respondent



For Appellant(s)         :     Mr. Sandeep Saruparia
For Respondent(s)        :     Mr. S.R. Paliwal



        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

                                Judgment

25/03/2021

The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment

and award dated 29.11.2002 passed by the Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal, Rajsamand in Claim Case No.32/2000, whereby the

learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.7,08,200/- as compensation

to the appellants-claimants on account of the death of Hussain

Bohra in the accident which occurred on 30.09.1999.

The learned Tribunal after framing the issues, evaluating the

evidence and after hearing the counsel for the parties, decided the

claim petition of the appellants.

(2 of 4) [CMA-342/2004]

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the findings

of the Tribunal on issue No.3 and 5 are incorrect on account of the

fact that the deceased was a businessman and he had filed his

income tax returns time to time. He submits that the income tax

returns for the assessment year 1996-97 shows the income of the

deceased as Rs.60,000/-, for the assessment year 1997-98 as

Rs.70,750/-, for the assessment year 1998-99 as Rs.84,765/- and

for the assessment year 1999-00, the income of the deceased

shows as Rs.1,05,782/-. The income tax returns were placed

before the Tribunal but the Tribunal committed an error by taking

into consideration the annual income of the deceased only

Rs.60,000/-. Learned counsel for the appellants therefore submits

that the income of the deceased should be assessed after taking

into consideration the gradual growth of the business income as

projected in the income tax return papers.

Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that no

amount towards the loss of future prospects was awarded to the

appellants in the light of the judgment rendered by Hon'ble the

Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company

Limited V/s Pranay Sethi & Ors. reported in (2017) 16 SCC

680,

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent - Insurance

Company submits that the income assessed by the Tribunal while

deciding the issue No.3 and 5 is perfectly justified in view of the

assessment of the income tax returns filed before it. Learned

counsel for the respondent submits that since the deceased was a

businessman, therefore, it cannot be said that he will always have

a high business income. He therefore, submits that no

interference is warranted in the findings recorded by the Tribunal.

(3 of 4) [CMA-342/2004]

However, learned counsel for the respondent is not in a

position to controvert the submissions with respect to the amount

towards the future prospects being denied to the claimants in the

light of the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of

Pranay Sethi (supra). Learned counsel for the respondent further

submits that the multiplier of 16 should be applied in the present

case as the deceased was 35 years of age at the time of accident.

I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and have

gone through the impugned judgment and award as well as the

other relevant record of the case.

The Tribunal while assessing the income of the deceased

discussed the income received by him on the basis of the income

tax returns filed before it. However, the Triubnal assessed the

income of the deceased as Rs.60,000/- only. This Court feels that

the income assessed by the Tribunal is incorrect and the ends of

justice will be met if the average income of the assessment year

1998-99 and 1999-00 is taken into consideration for computation

of the award. Since, the income of the deceased for the

assessment year 1998-99 was Rs.84765/- and for the assessment

year 1999-00, was Rs.1,05,784/-, therefore, the average income

of the two assessment years will come to Rs.95,273/-. The age of

the deceased was 35 years at the time of accident, therefore

multiplier of 16 will be applied in the present case and as per the

judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Praney

Sethi (supra), the loss of income to the extent of 40% is required

to be added while computing the award. Thus, in the considered

opinion of this Court, the amount is required to be recomputed as

under:

                                                                               (4 of 4)                   [CMA-342/2004]


                                   For             future (95273/12)                         Rs.7940/-- per month
                                   prospects :-

                                   Add: Future Prospects @ 40%                               Rs. 11116/-
                                   Rs.7940/- + Rs.3176/-

Amount to be deducted as Rs. 11116-3705 = Rs. spent on himself. 1/3rd 7411/-

The age of deceased was 35 years therefore, a multiplier of

16 will be applied.

(I) Compensation due to 7411x12x16 Rs. 1422912/-

death

(II) Other conventional heads Rs. 77,000/-