Kamla Devi and Rupendra Singh V. The New India Assurance Company Ltd., East Singhbhum and Ravi Lal Soren

MA/86/2015

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Kamla Devi and Rupendra Singh, parents of a deceased individual who died in a motor vehicle accident, seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Motor Vehicle Accident Claim Tribunal. The Tribunal had assessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.3000, contrary to the claimed Rs.8000 supported by documentary and testimonial evidence. The appellants contested this decision, arguing that the Tribunal disregarded substantial evidence including a salary certificate and income tax returns. The Insurance Company defended the Tribunal's decision, highlighting inconsistencies in the income claims compared to the employer's reported income. The High Court, after reviewing the evidence and applying the principles laid down by the Supreme Court, recalculated the compensation, significantly increasing it based on a higher assessed income and additional heads of compensation such as 'Future Prospect' and 'Conventional' heads.

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 799498 (HC-JHARKHAND)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 11-04-2022
• Assessment Year: misc
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: G C JHA
• Assessee Lawyers: JITENDRA UPADHYAY
• Keywords: Compensation; Future prospect; Income Assessment; Motor vehicle accident; Salary certificate; Conventional Head

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI M. A. No. 86 of 2015 1. Kamla Devi 2. Rupendra Singh .... …. Appellants Versus 1. The New India Assurance Company Ltd., East Singhbhum 2. Ravi Lal Soren .... .... Respondents ------ CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Appellants : Mr. Jitendra Nath Upadhyay, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. G.C. Jha, Advocate Oral Order 12 / Dated : 11.04.2022 1. Claimants have preferred the instant appeal for enhancement of compensation of the award passed by District Judge III-cum-Motor Vehicle Accident Claim Tribunal, East Singhbhum in Compensation Case No.59 of 2009. 2. As per the claim case, son of the claimants died in a motor vehicle accident involving a Truck bearing registration No.CG-05B-6308. It is further case of the claimants that the deceased was working in M/s Neha Bricks as Supervisor and he was earning Rs.8000/- per month. The owner and insurer of the vehicle have been impleaded. The learned Tribunal refused to accept Rs.8000/- per month and the income of the deceased and award of compensation by taking monthly income of Rs.3000/-. 3. The judgment of the Tribunal has been assailed mainly on the ground that the claimant in support of income of the deceased had filed Exhibit 4 which is salary certificate issued by employer M/s Neha Bricks and also filed Exhibit 5 which is income tax return of the year 2005-06 of the employer. Apart from the documentary evidence on the point of income, Santosh Kumar Singh has been examined as Claimant Witness No.2 and their partner Upendra Kumar Singh, has also been examined as Claimant Witness No.1. Both these witnesses have stated that he was earning Rs.8000/- per month from M/s Neha Bricks. It is submitted that despite these oral and documentary evidences, the income of the deceased was assessed to Rs.3000/- and the award of compensation has been 2 made accordingly. Further, no award has been made under the head ‘Future Prospect’ and under ‘Conventional’ head. 4. Learned counsel on behalf of Insurance Company, Mr. G.C. Jha submits that the Tribunal has assigned specific reasons for not accepting the income as deposed and claimed by the witnesses. It is submitted that the income of the deceased has been claimed to be Rs 8000 on the basis of salary certificate (Ext 4) by Santosh kumar Singh the partner of Neha Bricks. Whereas the income tax return of Santosh Kumar Singh shows his annual income. This brings out the incongruity of the claim in the income of the deceased which comes to Rs.96,000/- more than the income of the proprietor /partner of Neha Bricks. Any evidence that is produced on behalf of parties is to be tested by the Tribunal to determine its veracity. Simply because a salary certificate has been produced, it does not become a conclusive prove of the income and the Tribunal has rightly not accepted the claimed income for the reasons stated therein. 5. In view of the above, I do not find any error on the part of the Tribunal to assess the income of the deceased to be Rs.3000/- per month. The final compensation assessed as per the principles laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in (2017) 16 SCC 680 shall work out as under: Annual Income Rs.3,000x12=Rs. 36,000/- Annual dependency after deducting 1/2nd as the deceased was a bachelor Rs. 18,000/- Taking multiplier of 18 considering the age of the deceased to be 25years Rs.18,000 x 18 = Rs. 3,24,000 Future Prospect at the rate of 40% Rs. 1,29,600 Conventional head Rs. 77,000 Total Rs. 5,30,600 The claimants shall therefore be entitled to compensation of Rs.5,30,600 with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum on the compensation amount from the date of filing of claim application from the appellant Insurance Company. The Insurance Company is accordingly directed to make payment of the compensation amount 3 to the Tribunal within a month of this order. The Tribunal shall jointly pay the compensation amount to the claimants after proper verification. The appeal is allowed as at above. (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) Anit "