Uttarakhand High Court
Unknown vs Ramesh Chandra And Others on 18 November, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Presnt appeal is arising out of the judgment and award dated 13.10.2011 passed by
Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Haldwani in MACP No. 37 of 2011
Appeal from Order No. 475 of 2011
Smt. Farzana and others
..................Appellant
Mr. Zafar Siddique, Advocate
-versus-
Ramesh Chandra and others
.........Respondent
Mr. Deepak Rawat, Advocate for the Insurance Company
With
Appeal from Order No. 48 of 2012
The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.
..................Appellant
Mr. Deepak Rawat, Advocate for the Insurance Company
-versus-
Smt. Farzana and others
.........Respondent
Mr. Zafar Siddique, Advocate
Sri S.K.Mishra, J.
Date of hearing and Judgment: 18.11.2021
1. Both the appeals are preferred against the same
judgment by the claimants and Insurance Company,
therefore, both the appeals are heard together and
disposed of by this common judgment.
2. Heard Mr. Zafar Ullah Siddique, Advocate for the
appellant and Mr. Deepak Rawat, Advocate for the
Insurance Company.
3. In this appeal, the legal heirs of Late Shri Shabbir
Ahmad alias Shabban have assailed the final
judgment/award dated 13.10.2011 passed by Presiding
Officer of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-
Additional District Judge/First FTC, Haldwani in Motor
Accident Claim Petition No. 37 of 2011. The Tribunal
decided all the issues in favour of the claimants and
awarded a sum of Rs. 7,40,000/- along with interest @
7% per annum. The appellants are aggrieved by the
quantum of compensation granted in this case on the
ground that the Tribunal has taken into consideration
income of the deceased as a tempo driver and has
ignored the true income tax returns filed by them
showing his income to be Rs. 1,50,000/- and Rs.
1,60,000/- for the assessment year 2009-2010, 2010-
2011.
4. A careful examination of the record reveals that the
learned Judge Presiding the Tribunal came to the
conclusion that the income tax returns filed for the
aforesaid two assessment years cannot be taken into
consideration, in view of the fact that income tax was
not actually paid and the income shown by the
predecessor in interest of the claimants is actually less
than exempted limit, and therefore, he has not paid
any amount towards income tax.
5. Learned Tribunal further held that the deceased has no
landed property of his own. The Tribunal instead of
taking his actual income, calculated the compensation
on the basis of minimum wages i.e. Rs. 6,000/- per
month.
6. The approach adopted by the learned Presiding Judge
of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is erroneous.
Firstly, the accident took place on 11.12.2010 and
examination of the income tax return shows that it has
been filed on 31.03.2010 and 10.11.2020 i.e. much
prior to the death of the deceased on 11.12.2010. The
acknowledgement receipts filed by the claimants bear
signature and seal of the Income Tax Department of
even date mentioned above. So, the learned Tribunal
committed an error in not accepting the income of the
deceased to be Rs. 1,50,000/- for the assessment year
2009-2010, and Rs. 1,60,000/- for the assessment year
2010-2011. Moreover, these two documents are ante-
litem documents came into existence prior to the
initiation of the proceedings and even prior to the death
of the deceased.
7. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion
that even though no income tax was actually paid by
the deceased, the amount of compensation has to be
calculated on the basis of the income tax returns
document filed by the claimants before the Tribunal. In
this connection, we rely upon a judgment of the Hon'ble
High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the case of "IFFCO
TOKIO General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Promila
reported in 2019 SCC Online Punjab and Haryana 511"
where for the year 2010, the income tax return was
filed before the Tribunal which was not accepted by the
Tribunal and the High Court enhanced the sum of
compensation accepting the income of the deceased as
per the income tax return submitted by the claimants
without paying any income tax to the Department.
8. In that view of the matter, we take the income of the
deceased as Rs. 1,50,000/- per annum, after reduction
of 1/3rd the annual income of deceased come to Rs.
1,00,000/-. If it is multiplied by 15, the amount of
compensation comes to Rs. 15,00,000/-. Adding the
loss of pain and suffering, the loss of estate, funeral
expenses and other expenses, which is calculated to be
lump sum Rs. 1,00,000/- and the total amount of
compensation would be Rs. 16,00,000/-.
9. Hence, the appeal is allowed. While confirming the
findings of the Tribunal on all issues except issue No. 4
we disposed of the appeal by enhancing the
compensation of Rs. 16,00,000/- instead of Rs.
7,40,000/-. The insurance company is therefore,
directed to pay a sum of Rs. 8,60,000/- to be paid to
the claimants along with annual interest @ 6% from the
date of filing of the appeal. The amount shall be paid
within a period of 2 months from today failing which it
shall carry penal interest @ 8% per annum from the
date of filing of this appeal instead of simple interest @
6%.
10. It is needless to say that the appeal filed by the
Insurance Company for reduction of compensation is
dismissed being devoid of merit.
11. The additional money, as directed by this Court in the
judgment passed today, deposited by the Insurance
Company before the Tribunal be released in favour of
the claimants immediately on their proper identification.
The statutory amount deposited in Registry be refunded
to the Insurance Company along with accrued interest,
if any.
12. Let copy of this judgment be placed in the connected
appeal.
13. There shall be no order as to costs. Urgent certified
copy of this order is granted on proper application.
(S.K.Mishra)
Judge
A/-
