Smt Anjana Garg and Ashok Garg V. The New India Assurance Company Limited and Hariom Sharma and The United India Insurance Company Limited and Hariom Garg

CMA/2951/2007

AI Insights

The case involves two appeals filed by the claimants against the judgment and award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dholpur, which had awarded compensation for injuries and death resulting from a motor vehicle accident. The first appeal (S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 4037/2007) challenged the adequacy of the compensation awarded for non-pecuniary damages to the injured parties, Ashok Garg and Anjana Garg. The second appeal (S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2951/2007) contested the tribunal's rejection of the income tax returns for calculating the compensation for the dependents of the deceased, Natthi Lal. The High Court's decision in the first appeal upheld the tribunal's compensation amount, while in the second appeal, it recalculated the compensation based on the income tax returns, significantly increasing the awarded amount.

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 688204 (HC-RAJASTHAN)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 01-12-2018
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Indiro Devi & Ors., National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors.
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: SUKH RAM JATAV; SANJAY SINGHAL
• Assessee Lawyers: D K GARG
• Keywords: Compensation Enhancement; Income Tax Returns; Motor Accident Claims Tribunal; Non-Pecuniary Heads

Judgement Text

"HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 4037/2007 1. Smt Anjana Garg wife of Shri Ashok Garg, 2. Ashok Garg son of Shri Natthhi Lal Garg, Both by caste Vaishy, resident of Tasimo, Tehsil Sepau, District Dholpur (Rajasthan). ----Claimants-Appellants Versus 1. The New India Assurance Company Limited, through its Regional Manager, Having its regional Office at Nehru Palace, Tonk Road, Jaipur. 2. Hariom Sharma son of Shri Megh Raj Sharma, resident of Housing Board, Colony, Morena (M.P.) Presently residing at Sobha Nagar, Foundry Nagar, Agra (U.P.). (Owner of Truck). 3. The United India Insurance Company Limited, through its Regional Manager, Having its Regional Office at Sahara Chamber, Tonk Road, Jaipur (Rajasthan). 4. Hariom Garg son of Shri Natthi Lal Garg, resident of Mittal Colony, Dholpur (Rajasthan). (Owner of Jeep) ----Non-Claimants-Respondents Connected With S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2951/2007 1. Natthi Lal son of Shri Raghuveer Prasad (since deceased), 2. Suresh Chand, 3. Mohan Lal, 4. Ashok, Nos.2 to 5 all sons of Natthi Lal, by caste Vaishy, resident of Village and Post Tasimo, Tehsil Sepau, District Dholpur (Rajasthan). ----Claimants-Appellants Versus 1. The New India Assurance Company Limited, through its Regional Manager, Having its regional Office at Nehru Palace, Tonk Road, Jaipur. 2. Hariom Sharma son of Shri Megh Raj Sharma, resident of Housing Board, Colony, Morena (M.P.) Presently residing at Sobha Nagar, Foundry Nagar, Agra (U.P.) 3. The United India Insurance Company Limited, through its (2 of 6) [CMA-4037/2007 & CMA-2951/2007] Regional Manager, Having its Regional Office at Sahara Chamber, Tonk Road, Jaipur (Rajasthan). 4. Hariom Garg son of Shri Natthi Lal Garg, resident of Mittal Colony, Dholpur (Rajasthan). ----Non-Claimants-Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. D.K. Garg For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sukh Ram Jatav & Mr. Sanjay Singhal HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH GUPTA Judgment 01/12/2018 Both these appeals have been filed for enhancement of compensation against the judgment and award dated 03.05.2007 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dholpur (for short ‘the Tribunal’), whereby, the tribunal in M.A.C. Nos.329/2004 & 384/2004 awarded a sum of Rs.52,000/- & Rs.2,12,000/-, respectively, as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum. Since both the appeals are directed against the same judgment and award, therefore, they are being decided together. S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 4037/2007 Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the tribunal committed an error in awarding lesser compensation. The tribunal erred in awarding a very meager amount towards non pecuniary heads. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the appeal and supported the impugned judgment and award. (3 of 6) [CMA-4037/2007 & CMA-2951/2007] I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. The claim-petition was filed by the appellants seeking compensation on account of injuries sustained by Ashok Garg & Anjana Garg in the motor vehicle accident which occurred on 25.04.2004. Admittedly appellant’s has not suffered any permanent disability on account of injuries sustained by them in the accident. Appellant Ashok Garg sustained five injuries which were simple in nature and Smt. Anjana Garg sustained three injuries which were also simple in nature. In these circumstances, the tribunal awarded Rs.5,000/- and Rs.3,000/- respectively to the appellants towards the injuries suffered by them. The appellants was also granted Rs.35,000/- and Rs.9,000/- respectively towards medical bills proved on record. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the compensation awarded by the tribunal is just and reasonable. Hence, no ground for enhancement of compensation is made out. Consequently, the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2951/2007 It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the tribunal committed an error in discarding the income tax returns of the assessment year 2002-03, 2001-02 & 2003-04, respectively, which were duly proved by the appellant. The reasons assigned by the tribunal were hypothetical. After proving the same, there was no justified reason for not believing its contents, particularly when no evidence was submitted in (4 of 6) [CMA-4037/2007 & CMA-2951/2007] rebuttal. Therefore, while calculating the income of the deceased the income tax returns (Ex.111 to 113) may be taken into consideration. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has opposed the appeal and supported the impugned judgment and award. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties and have perused the material available on record. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Indiro Devi & Ors., in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.7104-7105 of 2016 has held as under:- \"9. We have given our anxious consideration to this contention. There is no doubt that if the salary certificate is taken into account the salary of the deceased should be taken as Rs. 1,06,176/- since the gross salary was Rs.8848 per month. That, however, in our view does not mean that the income of the deceased as stated in the Income Tax return should be totally ignored. It is not possible to agree with the observation of the Tribunal that it was necessary for the claimants to \"explain the said contradiction\" between two figures of income. The claimants had led reliable evidence that the deceased had returned an income of Rs. 2,42,606/- for the assessment year 2004-05. This piece of evidence has not been discredited. Indeed, it was possible that the deceased had income from other sources also. There is nothing in the law which requires the Tribunal to assess the income of the deceased only on the basis of a salary certificate for arriving at a just and fair compensation to be paid to the claimants for the loss of life.\" (5 of 6) [CMA-4037/2007 & CMA-2951/2007] Taking note of the law laid down in the aforesaid judgment, I am of the considered view that the learned tribunal was not right in ignoring the income tax returns (Ex.111 to 113) on the grounds stated in the impugned judgment and award since the same are misconceived. The correct approach was to assess the income of the deceased on the basis of the said income tax returns, which was submitted by the deceased in his lifetime, so far as to arrive at a just and fair compensation to be paid to the claimants. The tribunal ought to have taken into consideration these documents in determining the income of the deceased. In view of the oral and documentary evidence, the average income of the deceased at the relevant time is assessed as Rs.1,29,632/- (1,37,295+1,26,507+1,25,094÷3) per annum, in place of Rs.60,000/-. Keeping in view the number of the dependents, one half (1/2) of the income of the deceased is to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased. The age of the deceased was determined 65 years at the time of the accident. Thus, to work out the dependency of the claimants, the multiplier of 5 was rightly applied by the tribunal. In this way, the dependency of the claimants comes to Rs.3,24,080/-(1,29,632x1/2x5). In view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors., reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157, the claimants would be further entitled to receive a sum of Rs.55,000/- towards conventional heads. The claimants would be further entitled to receive Rs.10,000/- towards medical bills proved on record. Thus, the total amount of compensation (6 of 6) [CMA-4037/2007 & CMA-2951/2007] receivable by the claimants comes to Rs.3,89,080/- (3,24,080+55,000+10,000). Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed. Impugned award dated 03.05.2007 is modified to the extent that the claimants would be entitled to receive Rs.3,89,080/- by way of compensation instead of Rs.2,12,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal. Remaining terms and conditions of the award shall be the same. The Insurance Company shall deposit the enhanced amount along with the interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till date of payment with the Tribunal within a period of two months from today. (PRAKASH GUPTA),J SG/54-55 "