Commissioner of Income Tax-III, vs. M/s Rane Die Cast Limited,

(4 of 9) [CMA-2313/2013] No.2313/2013 and 2300/2013 has assailed the validity of the award on the ground of non-consideration of certain materials before the Tribunal. 3. Since the present appeals arise out of common judgment and award, therefore, with the consent of parties, same are being disposed of by a common order. 4. Brief facts giving rise to these appeals are as under:- 5. On a fateful day i.e. on 29.08.2009, the unfortunate accident had happened when Chuna Ram along with his wife Sayari @ Shimbhu Devi and two other persons were travelling from Merta City to Gotan in his vehicle i.e. Wagon-R Car. When they reached at about 2 Kms. ahead from Village Kalru, a truck bearing No.RJ 01 GA 1745 came from the opposite direction and hit the car which resulted into the untimely death of Chuna Ram and Sayari Devi. 6. The claimants preferred claim petitions before the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal on various grounds for grant of compensation. Reply was filed on behalf of the respondents denying the averments made in the claim petitions. Thereafter, on completion of the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the issues. After hearing the counsel for the parties, the learned Tribunal partly allowed the claim petitions of the appellants and awarded a sum of Rs.17,25,250/- in claim case No.76/2009 & Rs.45,33,225/-in claim case No.77/2009 in favour of the appellants/claimants and directed the respondents to pay awarded sum with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till actual payment is made.

(5 of 9) [CMA-2313/2013] 7. Dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal, the Insurance Company has assailed the validity of the same by filing the appeals No.2313/2013 and 2300/2013. 8. Mr. Manoj Bhandari, counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company submits that the basis on which, the Tribunal has computed the income of the deceased is unfounded. He submits that no cogent evidence was produced before the Tribunal for assessing the yearly income of the deceased Chuna Ram and Sayari Devi. He further submits that except the income tax certificate, no other documents supporting the factum of yearly income of the deceased was produced before the learned Tribunal. 9. While rebutting the submission of the counsel for the appellant, Mr. R.S. Choudhary, learned counsel for the claimants submits that the order passed by the Tribunal is perfectly just and proper as while computing the income of the deceased Chuna Ram and Sayari Devi, the Tribunal has considered the income tax certificate. Therefore, there is no infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal while computing the income of the deceased. 10. I have considered the submissions of the counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 11. The appeals filed by the United Insurance Company Ltd. are bereft of merit as the income tax returns of the deceased Chuna Ram and Sayari Devi are very much on record and the learned

(6 of 9) [CMA-2313/2013] Tribunal has computed the income of the deceased persons only on the basis of income tax certificate issued and therefore, there is no scope for this Court to interfere in the judgment and award so far as the above appeals are concerned as the findings recorded by the Tribunal are just and proper. 12. The appeals Nos.2313/2013 & 2300/2013 of the Insurance Company are therefore, dismissed. 13. So far as appeals preferred on behalf of the claimants are concerned, Mr. R.S. Choudhary, learned counsel for the claimants submits that multiplier used in claim case No.77/2009 was incorrect as there were four dependents in the present case, whereas the Tribunal has considered only 3 number of dependents and therefore, the deduction of only 1/3rd share towards personal expenditure has been done which on the face of it, is incorrect as it should have been 1/4th. 14. Counsel for the Insurance Company is not in a position to dispute the error pointed out by the counsel for the claimants and therefore, the deduction of 1/3rd share from the income of the deceased towards his personal expenditure in Claim Case No.77/2009 is erroneous and the deduction of 1/4th share from the income of the deceased is actually required to be made. 15. Counsel for the claimants further submits that the learned Tribunal has not considered the income towards the future prospects while computing the award in light of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance

(7 of 9) [CMA-2313/2013] Company Limited V/s Pranay Sethi & Ors. reported in (2017)

16 SCC 680

. 16. As far as the argument of the learned counsel for the claimants with respect to the computation of multiplier applied in the case of deceased Chuna Ram is concerned, it is a settled law that in view of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. DTC & Ors. Reported in (2009) 6 SCC 12, a person who is in the brackets of the age of 41-45, the multiplier is required to be used as 14. Therefore, the computation of award and dependency in the present case is required to be undertaken by using the multiplier of 14. Since, the deceased Sayari Devi was 40 years of age at the time of accident and therefore the Tribunal has rightly considered the multiplier of 15. Thus, the calculation of award for arriving at a ‘just compensation’ in the case of Sayari Devi is required to be done after taking into consideration the multiplier of 15. 17. As far as the income of the deceased and factum of accident is concerned, there is no dispute between the parties and they are taken to be same as taken into consideration by the learned Tribunal vide judgment and award dated 24.01.2013. 18. Taking into consideration the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (Supra), the computation which is required to be done in the present case is as under :-

(8 of 9) [CMA-2313/2013] In CMA No.393/2013 (Claim Case No.76/2009):- For

future prospects :- Rs.14166/- per month Add: Future Prospects @ 40% Rs.14166/- + Rs.5666/- Rs. 19832/- Amount to be deducted as spent on himself. 1/3rd Rs. 19832- 6610 = Rs. 13,222/- The age of deceased Sayari Devi was 40 years therefore, a multiplier of 15 will be used. (I) Compensation due to death 13222x12x15 Rs. 23,79,960/- (II) For the Loss of Estate (+) Rs. 15,000/- (III) For Loss of Consortium (+) Rs. 40,000/- (III) Funeral Expenses (+) Rs. 15,000/- Total Rs. 24,49,960/- Amount awarded by the Tribunal vide award dated 24.01.2013 Rs. 17,25,250/- Enhanced amount Rs. 7,24,710/-

In CMA No.394/2013 (Claim Case No.77/2009):- For

future prospects :- Rs.37517/- per month Add: Future Prospects @ 25% Rs.37,517/- + Rs.9379/- Rs. 46896/- Amount to be deducted as spent on himself. 1/4th Rs. 46896- Rs.11724 = Rs.35172/- The age of deceased Chuna Ram was 41 to 45 years therefore, a multiplier of 14 will be used. (I) Compensation due to death Rs.35172 x12 x14 Rs. 5908896/- (II) For the Loss of Estate (+) Rs. 15,000/-

(9 of 9) [CMA-2313/2013] (III) For Loss of Consortium (+) Rs. 40,000/- (III) Funeral Expenses (+) Rs. 15,000/- Total Rs. 59,78,896/- Amount awarded by the Tribunal vide award dated 24.01.2013 Rs. 45,33,225/- Enhanced amount Rs. 14,45,671/- 19. In view of the calculations made above, the appellants- claimants are awarded an additional amount of compensation of Rs.7,24,710/- in Claim Case No.76/2009, Rs.14,45,671/- in Claim Case No.77/2009. Since, the amount of compensation as awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Merta vide award dated 24.1.2013 has already been paid, the difference of amount should be paid to the appellants-claimants. 20. Accordingly, the present misc. appeals preferred on behalf of the claimants are disposed of with a direction to the Insurance Company to pay the enhanced amount to the claimants within a period of six weeks from today failing which the enhanced amount as ordered by this Court shall carry an interest @ 7% till the date of payment is made. Record of the learned Tribunal be sent back immediately. (VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J 82-85/praveen