CHANDAN KR. SARKAR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX and ORS

This is an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the New I ndia Assurance Company Ltd. against the judgment and award dated 10.08.2005 pass ed in MAC Case No. 222 of 2003 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Goalpara. The findings as returned by the Tribunal as regards the accident, injuries as re ceived by the claimant-respondent, involvement of the offending vehicle No. UP-7 6B-9927 and another Truck bearing No. HR-58-9748 and the insurance coverage by t he appellant and the respondent No. 4 so far the vehicles No. UP-76B-9927(Truck) and HR-58-9748 are concerned, are not at all in dispute in the appeal and as su ch those findings stand affirmed by this Court. A fresh appraisal on those aspec ts is avoided. The solitary question that has been raised in the appeal centres around the asse ssment of income of the injured claimant-respondent vis-à-vis the injuries that he suffered. Mr. J. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the appellant draws attention of thi s Court to the contemporary income tax return which was filed on 04.11.2002 by t he clamant-respondent (Ext.72) wherein it is found that the claimant-respondent had income from the legal practice at Rs. 35,800/- for the returned year, Rs. 44 ,500/- from the rental income and Rs. 42,402/- as the remuneration he used to re ceive from the Law College as the Principal. Mr. Singh learned counsel further d raws attention of this Court to the part of the examination-in-chief of the clai mant-respondent No., 1 where it has been stated: Besides my regular practice, I have been serving as Principal of Goalpara Law C ollege and drawing an amount of Rs. 8,000/- per month as my salary from 01.04.20 02 and Rs. 12,000/- w.e.f. 1.4.2003. I have submitted my income tax return to t he income tax authority every year and during the years 2000-2001 (assessment ye ar 2001-2002), my income from legal profession was shown as Rs. 60,000/-, renta l income as Rs. 44,500/-, bank and LIC interest as Rs. 9,827/-, agricultural inc ome Rs. 13,000/- and I paid Rs. 596/- as income tax after filing all the reduct ions.  Mr. J. Singh, learned counsel relying on those pieces of evidence submit s that the agricultural income and income from the rental cannot be affected by the accident. Apart that he had submitted from the deposition of the claimant-re spondent that it is evidently clear that he has not lost income as the Principal of the Law College rather after his accident his remuneration has increased. On the other hand, Mr. Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the resp ondent No. 1 submitted that though it is not in the deposition, but after two ye ars from the accident he could not continue as the Principal of the Law College and, as such he lost his income as the Principal of Law College in the said acci dent. It appears from the impugned judgment that the Tribunal has made an assess ment in the following mode: The PW-1 is found to be aged 68 years and ’5’ appears to be the appropriate mul tiplier in this case. Thus, applying the multiplier method and reducing the amou nt by the percentage of disability (70%), the proper compensation for sustaining permanent disability come to Rs. 6,68,244/-. According to PW-1, he was required to spend an amount of Rs. 48,000/- in his treatment, but, by producing the vouc hers marked Ext. 25 to 58, he could show spending only an amount of Rs. 48,088/- in his medical treatment and in allied expenses. The claimant is also entitled to get this amount as medical expenses. Thus, the total amount of compensation i s assessed at Rs. 7,16,332/- (Rupees seven lacs sixteen thousand three hundred thirty two) only inclusive of the amount paid, if any, as ’no fault liability’. This amount is awarded.  Being aggrieved by this finding, the appeal has been filed. On consideration of the rival contentions as well as materials available in the evidence, this Court is of the opinion that the assessment is required to be revisited. Accordingly, the assessment is carried out afresh in the following terms: Loss of earning per year Rs. 35,800/-(as per Ext. 72) as no other earnings are a ffected by the accident. The said sum is required to be multiplied by the multip lier ’5’ as chosen by the Tribunal and as there is no opposition on such choice. Thus the sum comes to Rs. 1,79,000/-. With the said sum an amount of Rs. 48,088 /- be added for medical expenses. The non-pecuniary components are required to b e added with the said sum.

For pain and suffering : Rs. 30,000/-

For loss of amenities : Rs. 30,000/- Thus total amount comes to Rs. 2,87,008/- rounded off at Rs. 2,90,000/-. The sai d amount would carry interest @ 9% p.a from the date of filing of the claim peti tion till the payment is made. The appellant is directed to pay the entire awarded sum with interest within two months from today proportionately with the respondent No. 4, National Insurance Co. Ltd after deducting the sum, if any, as already paid. If by this time the r espondent No. 4 has paid their part in the Tribunal and that has been received b y the respondent No. 1, no amount shall be recovered from the respondent No.