COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S INTRA PORT INDIA

MAC APP 553/2006

Page 1 of 4 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Reserved on: 16th March, 2012 Pronounced on: 30th March, 2012 + MAC APP. 553/2006

ANJANA PUJARA & ORS.

.... Appellants Through: Mr. M.K. Tiwari, Adv.

versus

BHARAT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. & ANR.

.... Respondents Through: Mr. V.C. Jha, Adv. for R-2.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL

J U D G M E N T G. P. MITTAL, J. 1. The Appeal is for enhancement of compensation of ` 4,54,000/- awarded for the death of Yashpal Pujara who died in a motor accident which occurred on 18.03.1998. 2. In the absence of any Appeal by the owner or the Insurance Company, the finding on negligence has become final between the parties. 3. During enquiry before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) it was claimed that the deceased Yashpal Pujara was a Partner in Manoj Cable Industries. He had an income of `3500/- to `4,000/- per month from the said business.

MAC APP 553/2006

Page 2 of 4 He was working as a Commission Agent for M/s. Unique Trading Company I-7/32, Sector 16, Rohini, Delhi since March, 1997 and had an income of ` 4500/- per month as a Commission Agent. The deceased was not an Income Tax Assessee, although, any income beyond `40,000/- per annum i.e. ` 3333/- per month was taxable. 4. The Appellant’s case that the deceased had an income from commission from Unique Trading Company was challenged on the ground that a loan of `1,79,000/- was given by the deceased to Unique Trading Company and in fact, the amount could have been paid by Unique Trading Company towards liability of interest. It was proved on record that the deceased’s children were studying in a public school in the year 1998 and a fee of over ` 3,000/- per quarter was being paid for each of the two children. 5. Although, the deceased was not paying any income tax, the Claims Tribunal in the facts and circumstances assessed the deceased’s income to be `3500/- per month. In the absence of any Income Tax Return being filed and after taking all the circumstances into consideration, this was the best which the Claims Tribunal could have done. Since the deceased was not being assessed to Income Tax and in the absence of any cogent evidence in respect of the deceased’s income, I would accept the deceased’s income to be `3500/- per month as taken by the Claims Tribunal.

MAC APP 553/2006

Page 3 of 4 6. As per Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121, the deceased’s mother would be taken as a dependent and therefore deduction towards the personal and living expenses would be one-fourth instead of one-third as taken by the Claims Tribunal. The appropriate multiplier would be ‘15’ as against ‘16’ adopted by the Claims Tribunal. 7. Thus, the loss of dependency following Sarla Verma (supra) would come to `4,72,500/- (3500/- x 3/4 x 12 x 15). 8. Considering that this accident took place in the year 1998, I would enhance a sum of `5,000/- awarded towards loss of Love and Affection to `15,000/-. I would further award a sum of ` 10,000/- towards Loss to Estate. 9. The overall compensation is recomputed as under:- Sl. No. Compensation under various heads Awarded by this Court 1. Loss of Dependency ` 4,72,500/- 2. Loss of Love & Affection `15,000/- 3. Loss to Estate ` 10,000/- 4. Loss of Consortium ` 5,000/-

Total ` 5,02,500/-

MAC APP 553/2006

Page 4 of 4 10. The overall compensation is thus enhanced from ` 4,54,000/- to ` 5,02,500/-. 11. It is urged that interest @5.5% per annum awarded by the Claims Tribunal was on the lower side. I would raise the same to @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of payment in this regard. 12. The shortfall in the compensation payable shall be made up and deposited with the Registrar General of this Court within six weeks. 13. Since this accident occurred almost 14 years back, the enhanced amount along with interest shall be released in favour of the first Appellant immediately on deposit. 14. The Appeal is allowed in above terms.

(G.P. MITTAL) JUDGE MARCH 30, 2012 vk