BAKULESH DISCRETIONARY FAMILY TRUST vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
SCA/1630/2008HC GujaratGJHC24009145200826 June 2008Author: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE Y.R.MEENA,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.C.UPADHYAYA5 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, after considering the arguments and perusing the record, held that even if the income tax paid by the deceased were deducted while calculating future earning capacity, the deceased would still be entitled to more compensation under the heads of consortium, loss of estate, and funeral expenses. The total compensation would approximate the amount already granted by the Tribunal. The Court appreciated the fairness shown by the appellant's counsel regarding the awarded amount. Therefore, considering all aspects, the Court found no reason to interfere with the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The appeal was dismissed, and the Tribunal was directed to disburse the amount as per its award.

What were the facts?

The appellant, National Insurance Company Limited, is challenging an award dated 27.07.2012 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxiliary), Surat. The award granted Rs. 30,33,632/- with 9% simple interest to the legal heirs of the deceased, Mayankbhai Devdharabhai Kapadia. The deceased died in a vehicular accident on 11.06.2005 when the Wagon-R car he was travelling in lost control, turned turtle, and hit a tree. The legal heirs filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking Rs. 35,00,000/-. The Tribunal, relying on the deceased's income tax returns and his age (35 years, 9 months), awarded compensation under various heads, including loss of dependency, loss of estate, and funeral expenses. The insurance company deposited the awarded amount and filed the present appeal.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal erred in calculating the income of the deceased by not deducting the tax paid, as argued by the appellant (Insurance Company)? 2. Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper, considering the principles laid down in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others (2017) 16 SCC 680, as argued by both the appellant and the respondents (claimants)? Contentions: Assessee (Insurance Company): The learned advocate for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal committed an error in calculating the deceased's income at Rs. 2,16,971/- by not deducting the tax paid. However, considering the decision in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, the amount awarded under heads like future loss of income, loss of estate, funeral expenses, and consortium does not warrant interference and is just and proper. Revenue (Claimants): The learned advocate for the original claimants submitted that based on the decision in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi (Supra), the claimants are entitled to more compensation than what was granted by the learned Tribunal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 173,Section 166

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
C/FA/263/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/10/2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 263 of 2013 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.J.DESAI Sd/- and HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MAUNA M. BHATT Sd/- ================================================================ 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? No 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? No 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India or any order made thereunder ? No ================================================================ NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Versus RUPALBEN RAJNIKANT KAPADIA & 1 other(s) ================================================================ Appearance: MR VIBHUTI NANAVATI(513) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 MR.HIREN M MODI(3732) for the Defendant(s) No. 2.1,2.2,2.3,2.4 RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1 ================================================================ CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.J.DESAI and HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MAUNA M. BHATT Date : 10/10/2022

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.J.DESAI)

1.

By way of present appeal under Section 173 read with166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the appellant – Insurance C/FA/263/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/10/2022 Company has challenged the judgment and award dated 27.07.2012 passed in Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 10 of 2006 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxiliary) Surat, by which, the Tribunal has awarded an amount of 30,33,632/- (Rupees Thirty Lacs Thirty Three Thousand Six Hundred Thirty Two Only) with simple interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition together with proportionate cost of the petition to the original claimants, who are the legal heirs of deceased Mayankbhai Devdharabhai Kapadia, who lost his life in the vehicular accident.

2.

The appeal came to be admitted by oral order dated 13.03.2013 and as per the order dated 13.03.2013 in Civil Application for Stay in the captioned First Appeal, the amount awarded by learned Tribunal has already been deposited before learned Tribunal.

3.

This Court is in receipt of Record and Proceedings of the aforesaid Motor Accident Claims Petition, which has been placed before this Court for perusal of the same.

4.

The short facts arise from the record are as under:

4.1.

That on 11.06.2005, the deceased Mayankbhai Kapadia, husband of present respondent No. 2 namely Neelamben Kapadia was travelling in a Wagon-R car bearing registration No.GJ-5-CD-9716 with his friends Pulkitbhai and Jayeshbhai and was going from Gadad to Navsari. The car was being driven by Pulkitbhai and when the car reached near village C/FA/263/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/10/2022 Adada, Pulkitbhai lost control over the car and the car turned turtle and dashed with the tree on the road side. The deceased sustained injury and died on the spot.

4.

2 The First Information Report being No.I-40 of 2005 was registered with Navsari Rural Police Station. The legal heirs of the deceased Mayankbhai filed Motor Accident Claims Petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the owner, driver and the insurance company of the car and claimed an amount of Rs.35,00,000/- with running interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the petitioner till its realization with cost.

4.3.

In response to the summons issued, the Insurance Company, owner and driver filed written statement before the Tribunal. The claimants did produce relevant documents including the income tax returns of the deceased, who was working as share broker.

4.4.

Learned Tribunal, by relying upon the said income tax returns of the deceased as well age age of the deceased, who was aged about 35 years and 9 months, granted the aforesaid amount under different heads. Learned Tribunal granted Rs.30,08,632/- under the head of loss of dependancy, Rs.20,000/- under the head of lost of estate and Rs.5,000/- under the head of funeral expenses.

4.

5 The Insurance Company, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award, challenged the same by filing present appeal. C/FA/263/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/10/2022

5.

Mr. Vibhuti Nanavati, learned advocate for the appellant, by taking us through the records and proceedings and, particularly, the income tax return at Exh. 47, would submit that learned Tribunal has committed error in calculating income of the deceased at Rs.2,16,971/- since the tax paid by ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of the deceased’s capacity of earning in future, he would be C/FA/263/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/10/2022 entitled for more than what is granted by learned Tribunal under the head of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses. The total comes to around the same amount, which has been granted by learned Tribunal. We have also appreciated the submissions made by Mr. Vibhuti Nanavati learned advocate for the Insurance Company and also considered the fairness shown on the part of Mr. Vibhuti Nanavati learned advocate appearing for the Insurance Company about the amount awarded by learned Tribunal. Therefore, considering the oval all aspects, we do not find any reason to interfere with the amount of compensation awarded by learned Tribunal. Hence, present appeal is dismissed.

9.

Since the appeal filed by the Insurance Company is dismissed, learned Tribunal is hereby directed to disburse the amount as per the award passed by learned Tribunal.

10.

Record and Proceedings be sent back to the concerned Tribunal forthwith. (A.J.DESAI, J)

(MAUNA M. BHATT,J) *F.S.KAZI…..

More judgments on Section 173

All 56 judgments and leading authorities on Section 173 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →