SRI SANJAY KUMAR JAIN vs. ASST. COMNMISSINER OF INCOME TAX, HYDERABAD.

MAC. APP. No.222/2010

Page 1 of 4

$~10

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Date of decision:27th February, 2012

+ MAC. APP. No.222/2010

URMILA YADAV & ORS. ..... Appellants Through: Ms. Manjeet Chawla, Advocate

Versus

SHRI CHAND NARAN JASUJA & ANR ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Manoj R. Sinha, Advocate for the Respondent No.2 Insurance Company.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL

J U D G M E N T

G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)

MAC. APP. No.222/2010

Page 2 of 4 that he had good future prospects. The Claims Tribunal took the deceased’s income to be `17,552/- on the ground that the deceased’s actual income on the date of the death is to be taken into consideration. The Claims Tribunal misinterpreted the words “actual income of the deceased at the time of death” used in Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr, (2009) 6 SCC 121. If the salary is revised retrospectively, the revised salary on the date of death becomes the actual income. The certificate Ex.PW1/A shows that the deceased’s salary on the date of the death was `19,380/- per month which comes to `2,32,560/-. The deceased had a liability to pay income tax amount to `19,200/- thereon. Considering his age i.e. 48 years, 30% addition was required to be made in the deceased’s salary towards future prospects for the purpose of computing the loss of dependency. The loss of dependency thus comes to ` 24,03,856/- (`19,380 X 12 – 19200 (Income Tax) + 30% X 13 X 2/3).