MANISH GOYAL S/O SHRI VISHNU DUTT GOYAL vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

-1-

2025:CGHC:21078

AFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 39 of 2020 Paras Jain S/o Surendra Jain Aged About 30 Years R/o Near Jain Mandir, Akaltara, Police Station Akaltara, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh.

--- Appellant (s) versus 1 - Dipak Kumar Nishad S/o Dhumnath Aged About 20 Years R/o Village Limtara, Post Darrighat, Police Station And Tahsil Masturi, District (Revenue And Civil) Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Shiv Prasad Bhoi S/o Gendram Bhoi R/o Ward No.10, House No.66, Butapara, Dewrikhurd, Police Station Torwa, District (Revenue And Civil) Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3 - United India Insurance Company Limited Through Branch Manager, Branch Office- 2nd Floor, Gurukripa Tower, Near Ambar Auto Mobiles Vyapar Vihar Bilaspur, Tahsil And District (Revenue And Civil) Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

--- Respondent(s) __________________________________________________________ For Appellant (s) : Mr. Anand Kesharwani, Advocate For Resp. No.1 & 2 : None appears though served For Resp. No.3 : Mr. Sudhir Agrawal, Advocate ____________________________________________________________ MAC No. 363 of 2020 United India Insurance Company Limited, Through Branch Manager, Branch Office, 2nd Floor Guru Kripa Tower, Infront Of Amber Auto Mobile, Vyapar Vihar, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. (Appellant ) SHUBHAM DEY Digitally signed by SHUBHAM DEY

-2-

---Appellant(s) Versus 1 - Paras Jain S/o Surendra Jain, Aged About 30 Years Resident - Near Jain Mandir, Akaltara, Thana Akaltara, District - Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. (Claimant ) 2 - Deepak Kumar Nishad, S/o Dhoomnath, Aged About 20 Years Resident - Village Limtara, Post - Darrighat, Thana And Tahsil - Masturi, District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. (Vehicle Driver ) 3 - Shiv Prashad Bhoi, S/o Gendram Bhoi, Resident - Ward No. 7, House No. - 66 Butapara, Devrikhurd, Thana - Torwa, Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. (Vehicle Owner )

--- Respondent(s) __________________________________________________________ For Appellant (s) : Mr. Sudhir Agrawal, Advocate For Resp. No.1 : Mr. Anand Kesharwani, Advocate For Resp. 2 & 3 : None appears ____________________________________________________________ S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Judgment On Board 07/05/2025 1. With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, the case is heard finally. 2. MAC No.39 of 2020 and MAC No.363 of 2020 are being decided by this common order as both the appeals arise out of same award dated 30.08.2019 passed in Claim Case No.228 of 2018 by learned 8th Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (CG). 3. MAC No.39 of 2020 is filed by claimant seeking enhancement of amount of compensation awarded by learned Claims Tribunal and MAC No.363 of 2020 is filed by Insurance Company challenging the quantum of amount of compensation awarded by learned Tribunal on two grounds that the claimant being husband of

-3- deceased was not dependent upon the income of deceased as there is no specific averment in this regard and further that the income pleaded based on income tax return (ITR) which are submitted as Ex.P-16 and Ex.P-17 are not admissible. He also contended that business from which income is assessed is registered in the name of father of applicant. 4. Facts relevant for disposal of these two appeals are that on 28.02.2018, Pratiksha alias Reshu Jain was going to her house after closing her shop with her mother-in-law Shobha Jain sitting on the rear seat of a sold TVS Zest moped driven by her, said vehicle was being driven slowly and carefully on her side. When she reached near Ambedkar Chowk Akaltara at about 08:30 p.m., driver of the vehicle (non-applicant no. 1) bearing No. CG-10-AH- 7208 coming from the front, driving his vehicle rashly and negligently, collided with the vehicle driven by Pratiksha Jain, and dashed against it, due to which Pratiksha Jain suffered grievous injuries on her head, stomach, thigh and various other parts of her body. She was immediately admitted to CHC Akaltara for treatment, where, seeing her serious condition, she was referred to higher hospital for treatment. Thereafter, she was admitted to Apollo Hospital Bilaspur by her family members. During the treatment, Pratiksha alias Reshu Jain died on 01.03.2018. 5. Claimant- Paras Jain being husband of deceased Pratiksha Jain filed an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “Act of 1988”) pleading therein that on the date of accident deceased -Pratiksha Jain was a 28-year-

-4- old healthy woman and was the owner of Osho Anand Utsav Dairy Sweets and Namkeen Shop. By doing the above work, she was earning an income of Rs. 4,00,000/- per year from which she was maintaining herself and her family. Due to untimely death of Pratiksha Jain in a motor accident, applicant has been deprived of her income. The vehicle causing accident on 28.02.2018 was Bolero Maxi Plus bearing No. CG-10-AH-7208 and it was being driven by non-applicant No. 1. Non-applicant No.2 is the owner said offending vehicle and non-applicant No.3 is the insurer. Applicant/claimant prayed for grant of total compensation of Rs. 76,53,000/- under different heads from non-applicants jointly and severally with an interest @ 12% per annum. 6. Non-applicants No. 1 and 2 have filed written statement rejecting all the pleadings made in the claim application and have stated that non-applicant No. 1 was driving the vehicle Bolero Maxi Cab no. CG-10-AH-7208 carefully on the date of accident but the vehicle- moped was being driven carelessly by Pratiksha alias Reshu Jain due to which she herself collided with the Bolero Maxi Cab and met with an accident. Non-applicant no. 2/owner has insured offending vehicle with non-applicant No. 3/ insurance company hence, the liability to pay compensation is on non- applicant no. 3, hence, claim application filed by the applicant against non-applicant no. 1 and 2 be dismissed. 7. Non-applicant No.3/Insurance Company has filed its written statement denying all the pleadings made in the claim application and has stated that the applicant was not dependent on the

-5- deceased Pratiksha alias Reshu Jain and the deceased Pratiksha alias Reshu Jain did not earn an income of Rs. 4,00,000/- per year by running a dairy business, her age was not 28 years. Non- applicant No.1 did not cause any accident, rather deceased herself hit the Bolero vehicle while driving the moped at high speed, carelessly, which caused her death and the driver of the moped (deceased), did not have a valid driving license. Deceased was not doing any work and was dependent on her husband. The accident took place between two vehicles, as such, the owner and driver are liable to pay compensation to applicant. 8. Learned Claims Tribunal, on appreciation of pleadings and evidence brought on record by respective parties, held that on the date of incident, the offending vehicle was being driven by non- applicant No.1 rashly and negligently, causing accident, in which Pratiksha Jain suffered grievous injury and succumbed to the motor accidental injuries. Recording a finding that breach of the conditions of insurance policy was not found proved, learned Claims Tribunal held non-applicants liable to pay amount of compensation to claimant, awarded total amount of compensation of Rs.45,42,790/ -. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant in MAC No.39 of 2020 submits that this appeal seeking enhancement of amount of compensation is filed only on one ground that learned Tribunal erred in applying the deduction of 1/2 instead of 1/3 overlooking the fact that claimant is spouse of the deceased. 10. Learned counsel for appellant-Insurance Company in MA (C) No.

-6- 363/2020 would submit that undisputedly, the claimant was husband of deceased. There is no specific evidence brought on record by the claimant that he was dependent upon income of the deceased. Dependency of the claimant upon income of deceased has not been proved in accordance with law. Hence, he is not entitled for any amount of compensation under head ‘loss of dependency’ but for other conventional heads. In support of his contention, he places reliance upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Lalnipuii (2006) 13 SCC 226, Mrs. Hafizun Begum Vs. Md. Ikram Heque & Ors. (2007 AIR SCW 4840) and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sonigra Juhi Uttamchand (2025) 3 SCC 23 to contend that claimant is required to prove dependency upon deceased. He contended that income as assessed by learned Tribunal of the deceased based on documents Ex.P-16 and Ex.P-17 i.e. ITR is also erroneous. Referring to deposition/evidence of claimant Paras Jain (AW1), he would submit that said witness in cross-examination has admitted that shop i.e. Osho Anand Utsav Dairy Sweets andd Namkin was recorded in the name of his father. He also pointed out that no document has been placed on record in the evidence that acknowledgment under signature of assessee has been forwarded to Income Tax Department, hence, acknowledgment placed on record as Ex.P-16 and Ex.P-17 cannot be considered in assessing income of deceased. In support of his contention, he places reliance upon the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the

-7- case of Smt. Sushila Jaiswal & Ors. Vs. Bramhanand Deshmukh & Ors. (MAC No. 1232 of 2014) decided on 04.08.2020, to contend that acknowledgment of ITR is required to be signed by assessee. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 12. So far as the appeal filed by insurance company i.e MAC No.363 of 2020 is concerned learned counsel for the appellant /insurance company raises three grounds. First ground is that the claimant was not dependent upon the income of deceased, income is not proved as the shop/Osho Anand Utsav Dairy Sweets and Namkeen from which income of deceased shown, is recorded in the name of his father as admitted by claimant and further that both the ITRs have been filed within gap of three days. 13. To appreciate submission of learned counsel for the appellant, I have perused the record of claim case. 14. In the claim application filed by claimant, it is mentioned that deceased was aged about 28 years on the date of accident. She was running Osho Anand Utsav Dairy Sweets and Namkeen shop (own business) and further that she was submitting ITR. It is also pleaded that claimant was dependent upon the income of deceased. In the evidence, claimant (AW1) has specifically pleaded that they were residing together till death of his wife. In cross-examination, this witness stated that he has placed on record the copy of the registration certificate as Ex.P-15. Perusal of Ex.P-15 would show that it is the ‘Licence and Registration’ issued from the Foods and Drugs Administration Department. Name of

-8- Firm/Organization is mentioned as “Osho Anand Utsav Dairy Sweets and Namkin. Address is mentioned as Bajrang Chowk Akaltara and the date of application was on 11.10.2017. Another document is available which is copy of the challan submitted on 11.10.2017 mentioning Osho Anand Utsav Dairy Sweets and Namkeen and name of proprietor is mentioned as Pratiksha Jain. Online details of the application of the licence/renewal of licence under Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 is also available along with Ex.P-15 wherein name of applicant is mentioned as Pratiksha Jain (deceased) and name of business/shop is mentioned as Osho Anand Utsav Dairy Sweets and Namkin. These documents are prior to date of accident. Date of accident is 28.08.2018, whereas, aforementioned documents with respect to registration are of 11.10.2017. 15. Claimant has also placed on record copy of ITRs as Ex.P-16 and P-17. In the first column of ITRs, occupation of deceased is mentioned as Osho Anand Utsav Dairy Sweets and Namkin . True it is that ITR for assessment year 2016-17 and 2017-18 have been filed within gap of three days, however, submission of ITR of deceased during her lifetime is not disputed as the submission of ITR before the department was admitted by witness AW3 Enten Kujur (Office Superintendent, Income Tax Department). He also identified the signature of Income Tax Officer of department. Perusal of both the ITRs would show that ITR was submitted before the concerned department i.e. Income Tax Department much prior to date of accident. First ITR was submitted on

-9- 23.06.2017 and second on 26.06.2017 whereas accident is of 28.02.2018. No person can predict the happening of future and, therefore, it cannot be said that ITR submitted by deceased even though within a difference of 3-4 days of depositing of first ITR, was only for the purpose of obtaining undue advantage of seeking higher compensation in the motor accident and therefore income disclosed in ITRs Ex.P-16 and P-17 cannot be disbelieved. 16. In view of above discussions, submission of learned counsel for appellant-insurance company that the deceased was not running/managing business of Osho Anand Utsav Dairy Sweets and Namkeen and income disclosed as Rs.3,72,575/- and relied upon by Tribunal to be erroneous is not sustainable and it is hereby repelled. 17. In case of Sonigra Juhi Uttamchand (Supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court considered admissibility of I.T.R.’s and held thus:- “8. Monthly income could be fixed taking into account the tax returns only if the details of payment of tax are appropriately brought into evidence so as to enable the Tribunal/Court to calculate the income in accordance with law.” 18. In case at hand, I.T.R.’s Ex. P-16 and Ex. P-17 have been proven by AW-3 officer of I.T. Department and hence, the decision in above cited case and in the case of Smt. Sushila Jaiswal (Supra) are not applicable to the facts of the case. 19. At this stage, learned counsel for appellant/insurance company would submit that if this Court is accepting the occupation of deceased as pleaded by claimant as also income from the said

-10- occupation then also learned Tribunal erred in assessing the income of the deceased as Rs.3,72,575/-. Learned Tribunal has not made deduction as mentioned in ITR under Chapter-VI-A of the Income Tax Act of Rs.73,508/- and upon deduction, annual income of deceased would come to Rs.2,99,070/-. 20. To appreciate submission of learned counsel for insurance company, perusal of the record would show that the claimant has not placed on record the computation sheet prepared by Tax Advisor to show that as to under what head, deduction has been made. It was the burden upon the claimant to place on record all the relevant documents in the form of evidence to show that deduction made is not towards the amount to be mandatorily deducted from the income, to assess the net income or the deduction made is towards deposits made by the deceased as mentioned under Chapter-VI-A of the Income Tax Act. Hence, in the opinion of this Court, learned Tribunal erred in assessing income of the deceased as Rs.3,72,575/- instead Rs. 2,99,070/- (372575-73508). Hence, income of the deceased for purpose of computing the amount of compensation would come to Rs.2,99,070/-. It is ordered accordingly. 21. So far as the next ground raised by learned counsel for Insurance Company that the claimant was not dependent upon the income of the deceased is concerned, it is not in dispute that deceased was wife of claimant. In the evidence-in-chief submitted in the form of affidavit, there is specific averment that both of them are residing jointly under one roof.

-11- 22. In the aforementioned facts of the case, when both the spouse are working and living together, they were enjoining income of both, even though both of them were having separate income. To ascertain dependency, relationship between the two i.e. claimant and deceased is to be first considered. If they are husband and wife, then it goes without saying that income of both i.e. husband and wife is being utilized by both of them jointly and by adding both income, they are maintaining their standard of living and comfort in their life. After the death of one of the spouse, the other spouse will suffer loss of income of his/her spouse, which will definitely affect the living standard of life of spouse who is alive and, therefore, it cannot be said that spouse who is having no income would only be treated to be dependent upon income of other spouse. For the foregoing discussion, submission of learned counsel for the appellant insurance company that claimant who is husband of deceased was not dependent upon income of deceased as he is also an earning person is not sustainable and it is hereby repelled. 23. Three decisions which are relied upon by learned counsel for the Insurance Company with respect to proof of dependency is distinguishable on facts. In case of Lalnipuii (supra), Sonigra Juhi Uttamchand (supra) and Mrs. Hafizun Begum (supra) any of the claimants are not spouse of deceased. In first case i.e. Lalnipuii (supra), deceased was the daughter not staying with her parents and Court came to the conclusion that there is no material to show that she was contributing to household expenses. In second case I.e Sonigra Juhi Uttamchand (supra) claimant is brother of

-12- deceased and in case of Mrs. Hafizun Begum (supra) also, claimants were brother of deceased and Court, considering that entitlement to file claim application and entitlement for compensation because of deprivation of dependency are two different aspects to be considered by the Courts. In the case at hand, deceased was the wife of claimant and further, in pleadings as well as in evidence it is stated that both of them were living together til date of wife of claimant. 24. So far as the ground raised by learned counsel for the appellant/claimant in MAC No.39 of 2020, learned Tribunal has applied deduction of ½ instead of 1/3 is concerned, Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Sarla Verma (Smt.) and Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr. (2009) 6 SCC 121, has clearly held that “where the deceased was married, deduction towards personal and living expenses should be 1/3”. In the case at hand, deceased was a married person and claimant is husband of deceased and, therefore, in the opinion of this Court in light of decision in case of Sarla Verma (supra), there should be deduction of 1/3 instead of ½ . Hence, application of deduction of ½ by learned Tribunal is erroneous and accordingly it is set aside. It is ordered that there shall be deduction of 1/3 towards personal and living expenses of deceased. 25. For the foregoing discussions, income of the deceased is assessed as Rs.2,99,070/-. As the deceased was 28 years of age on the date of accident, there shall be addition of 40 % towards future prospects in the assessed income of deceased as held by Hon’ble

-13- Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680. There shall be deduction of 1/3 towards personal and living expenses and the application of multiplier would be 17. Claimant would also be entitled to get Rs.40,000/- towards ‘loss of spousal consortium’, Rs.15,000/-each towards ‘loss of estate’ and ‘funeral expenses’ and Rs.29,139/- towards ‘medical expenses’. 26. For the foregoing discussions and the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court as mentioned above, I find it appropriate to re- compute the amount of compensation as under:- S. N. Heads Compensation 1. (A) Annual Income- Rs. 2,99,070/- (B) Addition towards future prospects @ 40% (2,99,070 x 40% =1,19,628) 2,99,070 + 1,19,628 = 4,18,698 (C) Deduction of 1/3 towards personal and living expenses (418698 x 1/3 =139566) 418698 - 139566 = 279132 (D) Multiplier of 17 279132 x 17 = 47,45,244/-

Rs. 47,45,244 2. Funeral Expenses : (+) Rs. 15,000 3. Loss of Estate : (+) Rs. 15,000 4. Medical expenses : (+) Rs. 29,139 8. Loss of spousal Consortium of Rs.40,000/- to claimant/husband : (+) Rs. 40,000 Total compensation : Rs. 48,44,383 27. Now the appellants/claimants are awarded total compensation of

-14- Rs. 48,44,383/- instead of Rs.45,42,790/- as awarded by learned Claims Tribunal. 28. Aforementioned total amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of claim application till its realization. Any amount of compensation already paid to the claimants shall be adjustable from the total amount of compensation which has now been calculated and awarded by this Court. Other conditions of impugned award shall remain intact. 29. In the result, both the appeals are allowed in part. Impugned award is modified to the extent and in the manner indicated above. --/- Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Praveen