The Commissioner of Income Tax-III, vs. M/s. Soma Enterprises Ltd.,

There is no reason to defer the hearing yet again or to dismiss it in default only to await an application for restoration coming up on its close heels. The case has to attain finality. 6. Having heard the counsel for the insurer and having gone through the grounds of appeal, this court finds substance only with regard to the grievance respecting the rate of interest levied. 7. In the case of first appellant, the tribunal considered the evidence adduced and computed compensation in the following manner:- “Petitioner in his evidence, deposed that petitioner remained admitted in Dr. RML hospital and discharged on 23.4.2006 and proved discharge report as Ex.PW4/4 and deposed that he was treated there for wounds and fracture of left leg. He has also brought on record various prescription slips which are Ex.PW4/5 (in nine pages) which shows that he had continued to take treatment on number of visits. He has also placed on record medical bills as Ex.PW4/6 (in 26 pages). He has also placed on record fare/petrol bills as Ex.PWl/7 (in 17 pages). He is entitled firstly on account of pain, shock and sufferings . Keeping in view more than 15 days confinement in the hospital due to fracture of leg and other wounds. I allow him Rs.20,000/- for pain and sufferings. I allow amount of bills Ex.PW4/6 which comes to Rs. 16799/-.I also award Rs.5000/- on account of conveyance, special diet and physio care. Petitioner deposed that he was having construction company and his annual income was Rs.l,30,000/-per annum though he has produced income tax return for the year 2005- 2006. He has claimed expenses for one year for treatment. There is no evidence of definite loss suffered by him. However, some loss on account that he has not been able to attend his business can be assumed. Keeping in view that he was attending OPD and such injuries generally take time to recover, loss of business can be assumed. I allow him sum of Rs.60,000/- lor loss of business. Keeping in view above findings, petitioner is entitled for the following amount as compensation;

The tribunal has taken note of the income tax (ITR) and the evidence led to the effect that his income was `1,30,000/- per annum for the year 2005-2006. No evidence was led to show that the said appellant was unable to work for gain for a period of one year due to the injuries. In these circumstances, the tribunal made a fair assessment and granted `60,000/- towards loss of income. There is no evidence to show that the said claimant had suffered permanent disability so as to the granted any compensation towards the loss of future income. The medical bills as produced were accepted in entirety and the compensation towards medical expenses granted accordingly. The award under non-pecuniary heads of damages in the given facts and circumstances is also found to be just and proper. 9. In the case of the second appellant, the tribunal considered evidence and computed compensation as under:- “Petitioner Mam Raj also tendered his affidavit and examined himself as PW1. His evidence shows that he has brought on record various papers of treatment after the accident and he was admitted in Dr. RML hospital from 5.6.2006 and discharged on same day. He suffered injuries on same leg where he earlier suffered injuries and he was operated in AIIMS and therefore, he again took treatment from

In the opinion of this court, the tribunal has made an appropriate assessment of the compensation awardable on the evidence adduced. The reasoning set out and the conclusions reached as above cannot be faulted. 11. Whilst there is no case made out for compensation to be enhanced, following the consistent view taken by this court, rate of interest is increased to nine percent per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization (see judgment dated 22.02.2016 in MAC.APP. 165/2011 Oriental Insurance Co Ltd v. Sangeeta Devi & Ors.). 12. With above modification in the two awards, the appeal is disposed of. 13. The insurance company is directed to deposit the amount payable in terms of the increase in the interest with the tribunal within 30 days of this judgment whereupon the same shall be released to the respective claimant. 14. The statutory deposit, if made, shall be refunded. 15. The appeal is disposed of in above terms.