The Commissioner of Income Tax [Central] vs. Akula Venkata Lakshmi

[2024:RJ-JP:6958] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 597/2017 National Insurance Company Ltd., Regional Office At Jeevan Nidhi, Ii Floor, Ambedkar Circle, Bhawani Singh Road, Jaipur Through Its Constituted Attorney ----Appellant Versus 1. Smt. Rajo Devi W/o Shri Murarilal, R/o Urden Tehsil Todabhim, Distt. Karauli 2. Smt. Savitri D/o Late Shri Murarilal W/o Shri Mayank, R/o Nangal Lotwada, Tehsil Sikray, Distt. Dausa Raj. 3. Kumari Laxmi D/o Late Shri Murarilal, R/o Udaren Tehsil Todabhim, Distt. Karauli Raj. 4. Kumari Rinki D/o Late Shri Murarilal, R/o Udaren Tehsil Todabhim, Distt. Karauli Raj. 5. Vishnu S/o Late Shri Murarilal, R/o Urden Tehsil Todabhim, Distt. Karauli Raj. 6. Mahesh S/o Late Shri Murarilal, R/o Urden Tehsil Todabhim, Distt. Karauli Raj. 7. Mu. Buddi Devi W/o Late Shri Ramswaroop Saini, R/o Urden Tehsil Todabhim, Distt. Karauli Raj. 8. Kishan Lal S/o Shri Chhotelal, R/o Doub Police Station Ramgarh Pachbada, Tehsil Lalsot, Distt Dausa Driver Vehicle No. Rj-34-Sd-1939 9. Harswaroop S/o Shri Madanmohan, R/o Kudhawal, Tehsil Todabhim, Distt. Karauli Raj. Registered Owner Of Vehicle No. Rj-34-Sd-1939 10. Sureshchand S/o Shri Bahmukund, R/o Nangal Sultanpur, Police Station Balghat, Tehsil Todabhim, Distt. Karauli Supurdgar Of Vehicle No. Rj-34-Sd-1939 ----Respondents Connected With S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1335/2017 1. Smt Rajo Devi W/o Late Shri Murari Lal, R/o Village Urden Tehsil Todabheem Distt. Karoli. 2. Smt Savitri D/o Late Shri Murari Lal, W/o Mayank R/o Nagal Lotwara Tehsil Sikray Distt. Dausa.

[2024:RJ-JP:6958] (2 of 6) [CMA-597/2017] 3. Kumari Laxmi, D/o Late Shri Murari Lal, R/o Village Urden Tehsil Todabheem Distt. Karoli. 4. Kumari Rinki, D/o Late Shri Murari Lal, R/o Village Urden Tehsil Todabheem Distt. Karoli. 5. Vishnu S/o Late Shri Murari Lal, R/o Village Urden Tehsil Todabheem Distt. Karoli. 6. Mahesh S/o Late Shri Murari Lal, R/o Village Urden Tehsil Todabheem Distt. Karoli. 7. Budhi Devi, W/o Ramswroop Saini, R/o Village Urden Tehsil Todabheem Distt. Karoli. ----Appellants Versus 1. Kishan Lal S/o Shri Chhote Lal R/o Village Dob, P.s Ramgarh Pachwara Tehsil Lalsot Distt. Dausa. 2. Harswroop S/o Shri Madanmohan R/o Kudhwal Tehsil Todabheem Distt. Karoli. 3. Suresh Chand S/o Shri Balmukand R/o Nagral Sultanpur P.s. Balghat Tehsil Todabheem, Dis 4. The National Insurance Co. Ltd Through Its Regional, Manager At Regional Office Lic Building Janpath, Amberkar Circle, Jaipur ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Rishipal Agarwal, Advocate for Insurance Company For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sunil Jain, Advocate for claimants HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Judgment DATE OF JUDGMENT 12/02/2024 The instant appeals have arisen out of the judgment and award dated 16.12.2016 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hindauncity (Additional District and Sessions Judge, No.1, Hindauncity) (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in Claim Case

[2024:RJ-JP:6958] (3 of 6) [CMA-597/2017] No.137/2011 titled as “Smt. Rajo Devi & Ors. Vs. Kishanlal & Ors.”, whereby the Tribunal while partly allowing the claim petition, has awarded a sum of Rs.77,34,378/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition as compensation in favour of the claimants-respondents (for short’ the claimants’) and the Insurance Company and respondent Nos. 8 and 9 in CMA No. 597/2017 have been held entitled to pay the amount of compensation jointly and severally. CMA No.597/2017 has been filed by the Insurance Company challenging the judgment & award passed by the Tribunal on the various grounds, whereas CMA No.1335/2017 has been filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. CMA No.597/2017-Learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that the award passed by the learned Tribunal is illegal, perverse to the facts and material on the record. Learned counsel further submits that learned Tribunal has not appreciated the evidence in the right perspective while deciding the issue No.1. Learned counsel further submits that FIR was lodged with a delay of one day against the unknown motorcycle. After that, with manipulation, motorcycle No.1939 was involved in the investigation to extract the money from the appellant. Learned counsel also submits that the witnesses Bharat Singh and Girdhari clearly stated that they had not informed to Batti Lal regarding the accident. Learned counsel also submits that the learned Tribunal has wrongly awarded Rs. 25,000/- towards loss of consortium to claimant No.1 in CMA No. 597/2017 as she is getting pension. So, there was no loss of income was occurred to her. So, the

[2024:RJ-JP:6958] (4 of 6) [CMA-597/2017] impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal may be set-aside. CMA No.1335/2017-Learned counsel for the claimants submits that the Tribunal while calculating the income of the deceased wrongly deducted 1/4th amount towards the personal expenses of the deceased. As per the dependency, it should be 1/5th. Learned counsel further submits that learned Tribunal awarded a very meager amount of Rs.25,000/- towards loss of consortium to claimant No.1, Rs. 1,00,000/- as lump sum amount to claimant Nos. 2 to 6 and Rs. 20,000/- to claimant No.7 towards love and affection, whereas it should be Rs. 40,000/- for each claimants. So, award of the Tribunal may be modified accordingly. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the Insurance Company as well as learned counsel for the claimants. While deciding the claim petition, learned Tribunal clearly mentioned that after investigation, Investigating Officer filed the charge-sheet against the respondent No.1- Kishan Lal in CMA No. 1335/2017. Insurance Company has not adduced any evidence to prove issue No.3. So, in my considered opinion, learned Tribunal has rightly decided issue Nos. 1 and 2 against the Insurance Company. Learned Tribunal while calculating the income of the deceased clearly mentioned that claimant No. 2-Savitri in CMA No. 1335/2017 is the married daughter of the deceased. So, she is not dependent upon the deceased. So, there were only 6 dependents of the deceased. So, learned Tribunal rightly deducted 1/4th amount towards the personal expenses of the deceased but

[2024:RJ-JP:6958] (5 of 6) [CMA-597/2017] learned Tribunal has committed an error in granting meager amount of Rs.25,000/- towards loss of consortium to the wife of the deceased, Rs. 1,00,000/- as lump sum amount to claimant Nos. 2 to 6 and Rs. 20,000/- to the claimant No.7, whereas it should be Rs. 40,000/- for each claimants. So, the judgment of the Tribunal is modified to the extent as under:- Monthly income Rs.50,131/- Annual Income 50,131X12=6,01,572 Less Income Tax 6,01,572- 46,673 =5,54,899/- Since, the deceased was a Government Servant and whose age was determined between 44-45 years, add 30% towards future prospects 5,54,899+1,66,469.7 (round off 1,66,470)=Rs.7,21,369/- 1/4 is to be deducted for personal expenses of the deceased 7,21,369 – 1,80,342 =5,41,027/- According to the age of the deceased, Multiplier 14 to be applied 5,41,027 X 14= Rs.75,74,378/- Loss of consortium to claimants No. 1 to 7 (40,000 X 7) Rs.2,80,000/- Funeral expenses (+) Rs. 15,000/- Total Rs.78,69,378/- Less amount awarded by the Tribunal Rs.77,34,378/- Enhanced Amount of compensation 78,69,378 – 77,34,378= Rs.1,35,000/- Accordingly, the civil miscellaneous appeal No.1335/2017 filed by the claimants is partly allowed. The claimants are entitled to get a further sum of Rs.1,35,000/- as compensation. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit enhanced amount of Rs. Rs.1,35,000/- (Rs.78,69,378 – Rs. 77,34,378) with the Tribunal

[2024:RJ-JP:6958] (6 of 6) [CMA-597/2017] within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. On deposition of the said amount, the claimants shall be entitled to withdraw the same. The enhanced amount shall carry @ 6% interest per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till the actual payment is made. In the result, appeal filed by the Insurance Company is dismissed, whereas, appeal filed by the claimants is partly allowed. Rest part of the impugned judgment shall remain unchanged. Impugned judgment and award is modified accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of. (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J Jatin/Ritu/250-251