The Director of Income Tax (Exemptions) vs. Mennonite Brethern Charitable Hospitals Trust

PDF · subscribers
ITTA/204/2016HC TelanganaHBHC01004426201620 April 2016Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,SURESH KUMAR KAIT5 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the registered owner of the vehicle was the primary consideration for insurance liability, and the deceased could be treated as a third party. While the quantum of compensation under the conventional head was erroneous, the annual income assessment was upheld. The court recalculated the compensation based on established precedents.

What were the facts?

The Insurance Company appealed an award of compensation for a motor accident. The Tribunal had found the accident was due to the driver's negligence and awarded compensation based on the deceased's income tax returns. The Insurance Company argued the claim was not maintainable as the deceased was a co-owner and the policy was liability-only, and also challenged the quantum of compensation.

What were the issues?

Whether the Insurance Company is liable for compensation when the deceased was a co-owner and the policy was liability-only, and whether the quantum of compensation awarded was correct.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 166,Section 2(30),Section 157

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(3)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

2025:JHHC:23981 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

Misc. Appeal No.204 of 2016

------ United India Insurance Co. Ltd. through the Branch/Divisional Manager, Divisional Office at Baypar Bhawan, 1st Floor, Laljee Hirjee Road, P.S. Kotwali, P.O. G.P.O., District Ranchi through its Manager, Ashok Bhaskar Pandey, son of Late R.N. Pandey, resident of Hinoo, P.O. Doranda, P.S. Doranda, District Ranch

.... .... …. Appellant

Versus 1. Rukmani Devi, wife of Late Om Prakash Agarwal

2.

Gopal Agarwal (minor) son of Late Om Prakash Agarwal 3. Suchita Kumari (minor) daughter of Late Om Prakash Agarwal 4. Barsa Kumari (minor) daughter of Late Om Prakash Agarwal Respondent Nos.2 – 4 are minors and are being represented through their mother and natural guardian/respondent no.1. All resident of Main Road, P.O., P.S. & District Simdega

.... .... .... Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY

For the Appellant : Mr. Ashutosh Anand, Advocate

Mr. Niket Kumar Gupta, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Randhir Kumar, Advocate

------ Order No.17 / Dated : 14.08.2025

Insurance Company is in appeal against the award of compensation under Section 166 of the M.V. Act in MACC No.09/2011 whereby whereunder, a compensation of Rs.22,25,916/- with interest @ 9% from the date of application till the time of realization has been awarded in favour of claimants.

2.

Learned Tribunal recorded a finding that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of Jeep bearing registration no.BR-43A-0427 which was under the insurance cover of the appellant- Insurance Company and assessed the annual income of the deceased of Rs.1,53,532/- by accepting his occupation to self-employed business man, considering his income tax return (Exhibit 7). 3. It is argued by learned counsel on behalf of appellant that the claim application was not maintainable for the reason that in para 22 of the application, there is specific averment that offending vehicle was in the joint ownership of deceased - Om Prakash Agarwal and one Md. Mansoor Akhtar. This averment made in the claim application has not been denied by the owner of the vehicle in his written statement. The insurance Policy was

2025:JHHC:23981 2

Act only Policy (Exhibit 4) and not a comprehensive policy, therefore, the owner of the vehicle was not covered under that policy. 4. Second limb of argument is that under the conventional head Rs.2,30,000/- has been awarded which is not in the tune with ratio laid down by the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680. Even the award under future prospect of 30% is not as per the age of the deceased, who was 48 years at the time of accident. Further, so far, the monthly income of the deceased is concerned, there is no detail with regard to his occupation and the annual income has been taken on the basis of income tax return. The rate of interest @ 9 %, is not as per the ratio laid down in Sarla Verma & Others Versus Delhi Transport Corporation & Another, (2009) 6 SCC 121. 5. It is also argued that although in finding portion on Issue Nos.II and III, the Tribunal has held that the Insurance Company had a right to recovery but in the operative portion, the said right has not been dealt with. On the issue of deceased being owner, reference is made to Section 2(30) of the Motor Vehicle Act, which reads as under: - “2 (30) owner means a person in whose name a motor vehicle stands registered and where such person is a minor, the guardian of such minor, and in relation to a motor vehicle which is the subject of a hire-purchase, agreement, or an agreement of lease or an agreement of hypothecation, the person in possession of the vehicle under that agreement.” 5. Reliance is placed on judgment of Hon’ble the Apex Court in the case of Vaibhav Jain vs. Hindustan Motors Pvt. Ltd., passed in Civil Appeal No.10192 /2024 [arising out of SLP (C) No.28968/2018], wherein it has been held that the owner is not confined to registered owner, para 19 judgment is quoted hereinbelow: - “19. What is clear from the decisions noticed above, is that ‘owner’ of a vehicle is not limited to the categories specified in Section 2(30) of the M.V. Act. If the context so requires, even a person at whose command or control the vehicle is, 1414 (2004) 5 SCC 409, paragraph 27 could be treated as its owner for the purposes of fixing tortious liability for payment of compensation. In this light, we shall now examine whether at the time of accident the vehicle in question was under the command and control of the appellant (i.e., the dealer).” 6. Notices were duly served on the owner of the vehicle, but none has appeared and consequently the instant appeal is being heard ex parte against

2025:JHHC:23981 3

him. 7. It has been argued on behalf of the claimants that as per the Insurance Policy (Ext.4), it was Mansoor Akhtar who was owner of the vehicle. No contrary evidence in the form of any agreement of sale, lease or document of hypothecation has been led to show that the deceased was the owner of the said vehicle. Further, the Apex Court has held in judgment reported in Naveen Kumar Vs. Vijay Kumar & Others, (2018) 3 SCC 1 that it is the registered owner who shall be termed as owner for the purpose of the Motor Vehicles Act. 8. With regard to the plea that even if it is accepted that the deceased was not owner, he can only be regarded as a gratuitous passenger as it was not a commercial vehicle, it is submitted that the Insurance Company will have a right of recovery, but it cannot get away from primary liability to pay the compensation in terms of Section 157 of the M. V. Act and in the Act policy also. 9. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of both the sides, and the outset it is to be noted that proceedings before the Tribunal adjudicating motor accident claim cases, are summary in nature in terms of sections 168 and 169 of the MV Act. Therefore, the hyper- technical plea that has been raised based on entry in the claim application regarding ownership of the vehicle cannot be stretched too far. Law is settled that a registered owner can only be considered while awarding compensation. It has not been disputed by the insurance company that Mansoor Akhtar was the registered owner of the offending vehicle, it was his interest that insurance company under the policy of insurance had agreed to indemnify against third party liability. Thus, the plea of the appellant regarding ownership of the vehicle is not sustainable and is accordingly rejected.

10.

Policy of insurance has been adduced into evidence and marked as Exhibit 4, from which it is evident that it was issued for private car and was ‘liability only’. Meaning thereby, that offending vehicle was not commercial vehicle and was not intended to carry passengers for hire. Therefore, the deceased can be treated as a third party, who was travelling in the vehicle as a gratuitous passenger. Carrying a gratuitous passenger was a breach of the

2025:JHHC:23981 4

terms of insurance policy and therefore the Insurance Company was not liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle. However, the third party interest cannot be permitted to suffer on account of the breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy . Accordingly, the insurance company shall be liable to the compensation amount and will have a right of recovery against the owner of the vehicle. 11. Coming to the quantum of cession, there is no error in accepting the income tax return as the proof of income of the deceased. However, there is an apparent error in awarding compensation of Rs.2,30,000/- under the conventional head. 12. Taking Rs.1,53,532/- as the annual income of the deceased as per the income tax return (Exhibit 7), his age to be 48 years and four dependents at the time of accident the final compensation amount as per the ratio laid down in National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 shall accordingly work out as per the table given below: - Annual Income Rs 1,53,532/- Annual dependency after deducting 1/4th on the living and personal expenses of the deceased Rs 1,15,149/- Applying multiplier of 13 to the age group of 48 Rs 14,96,937/- Future Prospect @ 25% Rs,3,74,234/- Conventional head Rs 77,000 Total Rs 19,48,171/-

13.

The claimants shall therefore be entitled to compensation of Rs.19,48,171/- with interest @ of 7.5% per annum on the compensation amount from the date of filing of claim application from the appellant Insurance Company. The Insurance Company is accordingly directed to make payment of the compensation amount to the Tribunal within a month of this order. Statutory deposit made by the Insurance Company at the time of filing of the appeal to be remitted to the Tribunal for being paid to the claimants against the final compensation.

2025:JHHC:23981 5

14.

The Insurance Company shall have a right of recovery against the owner of the vehicle. 15. The Tribunal shall pay the compensation amount to the claimants in the manner given below: - A. 70% of the total compensation amount to be paid to Claimant no.1 in her Bank account. B. 10% of the compensation amount to be paid to each of the claimant nos.1(A) to1(B) and 1(C) in Bank Account jointly with claimant no.1. C. In case of the claimants below 21 years the amount to be fixed deposited till they attain the age of 21 years.

16.

The statutory amount deposited at the time of preferring the instant Misc. Appeal will be sent to the learned Tribunal for its disbursement to the claimants.

Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed. Interlocutory Application, if any, is disposed of.

(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) Anit

More judgments on Section 166

All 144 judgments and leading authorities on Section 166 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →