COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (E) vs. THE ASSOCIATED CHAMBERS OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY OF INDIA
What did the High Court hold?
The tribunal upheld the finding of negligent driving and awarded compensation. The insurer's appeal challenging the inclusion of future prospects in the compensation calculation was dismissed.
What were the facts?
A motor vehicle accident resulted in the death of Narinder Sharma, who was running his own business. His dependent family members filed a claim for compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act.
What were the issues?
Whether the tribunal erred in factoring in future prospects of income increase when calculating loss of dependency for compensation.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Sections 166, 140 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
MAC APP. No.343/2016 Page 1 of 2
$~36
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 24th May, 2016
+ MAC.APP. 343/2016 & CM No.14723/2016
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD ..... Appellant
Through Mr. Rajat Brar, Adv.
versus
SHALU SHARMA & ORS ..... Respondent
Through None CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT
R.K.GAUBA, J (ORAL): 1. Narinder Sharma, aged 42 years, running his own business in the name and style of M/s Mahak Cable Networks in DDA flats, East Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi died in a motor vehicular accident that occurred on 14.09.2013 involving negligent driving of motor vehicle described as bearing registration No.HR 63B 2807 (offending vehicle) which was admittedly insured against third party risk with the appellant insurance company (insurer). His dependent family members, first to fourth respondents, (claimants) instituted accident claim case (MACT No.309/2014) on 15.04.2014 seeking compensation under Sections 166 & 140 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MV Act). The tribunal, after inquiry, by judgment dated 15.02.2016, upheld the case of negligent driving of the
MAC APP. No.343/2016 Page 2 of 2
offending vehicle having led to the death and awarded compensation in the sum of `30,26,810/- with interest at 9% per annum in favour of the claimants directing the insurer to pay. 2. By the appeal at hand, the insurer raises only one grievance, namely, that in calculating the loss of dependency, the tribunal has factored in the element of future prospects of increase to the extent of 30% which, in the submission of the appellant, was improper. Under directions of this Court, the insurer has placed on record the photocopies of the income tax returns (ITRs) which were relied upon by the claimants and proved at the inquiry before the tribunal to prove the nature of avocation and the income generated from year to year. The ITRs pertained to the assessment years 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13. A perusal of the said ITRs shows that the deceased had declared the gross total income `2,16,100/-, 2,20,960/- and 2,43,900/- respectively for the said three assessment years. 3. Given the above nature of irrefutable evidence adduced before the tribunal, showing progressive rise in the income, the element of future prospects cannot be grudged. [see judgment dated 28.03.2016 in MAC.APP. 548/2013 United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kamla & Ors.]
Thus, the appeal is unmerited and dismissed in limine with application. 5. The statutory deposit shall be refunded.
(R.K. GAUBA) JUDGE MAY 24, 2016 VLD
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. Saraswati Enterprises vs. State Of RajasthanRajasthan · 28 Oct 2026
- Akshaya Consortium vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)Andhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- Dipanshu Aggarwal vs. Director General Of GST IntelligenceDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Dezinetree Projects PVT. LTD. vs. Spokes Digital Inc And AnrDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Jaydeep Jayantilal Hudaka vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 28 Oct 2026