The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Sri Enuga Pattabhirami Reddy Trust,

1 fa255.07 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO. 255 OF 2007 1] Meenatai Subhash Kadu, age 42 years, occ. Household, 2] Rahul Subhash Kadu, age 21 years, occ. Education, 3] Nikhil Subhash Kadu, age 17 years, occ. Education, All R/o Tisgaonwadi, Tq. Rahata, Dist. Ahmednagar ...Appellants [Orig.Applicants] VERSUS 1] Rajendra Chandamal Tathed, age Major, occ. Transport/ Contractor R/o Manori, Tq. Rahuri, Dist. Ahmednagar, 2] The Branch Manager, National Insurance Co., Rai Chamber, Kothala Stand, Ahmednagar ...Respondents [Orig.Opponents] ... Mr. V.V.Tarde holding for Mr. V.H.Dighe, advocate for appellants Mr. S.L.Bhapkar, advocate for respondent no.1 Mr. S.V.Kulkarni, advocate for respondent no.2 ...

CORAM : SUNIL K.KOTWAL, J. DATE OF RESERVING THE JUDGMENT            : 25.09.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT             : 01.10.2018

2 fa255.07 J U D G M E N T : This appeal is preferred by the original claimants against the judgment and award, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ahmednagar, in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 926 of 1999. 2. Respondent   no.1   is   owner   and   respondent no.2     is     insurer     of   offending   Truck   No. MH­17/C­6561. 3. Facts, leading to the institution of this appeal,   in   brief,   are   that   on   29.6.1998   when deceased   Subhash   Kadu   was   traveling   by   State Transport Bus No. MH­20/D­1661 towards Nashik, the offending   Dumper/Truck   came   from   front   side   and gave sliding dash on the back portion of the ST Bus resulting into slicing of body of the Bus.  In that accident,   deceased   Subhash   Murlidhar   Kadu (hereinafter referred to as, 'the deceased') died on the spot.  Therefore, the claimants, who are the only   dependents   of   the   deceased,   filed   claim petition for compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

3 fa255.07 4. After considering the evidence placed on record,   the   Tribunal   awarded   compensation   of Rs.5,55,000/­   including   amount   of   no   fault liability.   That award is challenged by claimants claiming enhancement of compensation. 5. Learned counsel for the claimants submits that the deceased was owner of agricultural land having   good   income.     In   addition   to   this,   the deceased   was   running   small   scale   industry   of supplying   bottle   caps. However,   without considering the earning capacity of the deceased in proper   manner,   the   Tribunal   assessed   notional income of the deceased at the rate of Rs.4,500/­ only and awarded meager compensation. 6. Next   submission   of   learned   counsel   for the   appellants   is   that   the   Tribunal   did   not consider   the   future   prospects   of   the   deceased, though at the time of death he was below the age of 40 years.  He submits that under conventional head less compensation is awarded by the Tribunal.   He points out that no compensation was awarded under

4 fa255.07 the head of loss of consortium and loss of estate. Relying on the case of “Sushila wd/o Subhash Mendhe and anr. Vs National Insurance Co. Ltd.” [2018 (3) Mh.L.J.311], he submits that notional income of the deceased can be assessed at the rate of Rs.9,000/­ per month. 7. Learned   counsel   for   the   respondent   did not   dispute   the   age   and   appropriate   multiplier applied   by   the   Tribunal.    His  objection   is   that when there was no evidence regarding actual income of the deceased, the Tribunal rightly assessed his monthly income as Rs.4,500/­.   However, he fairly states that in view of the judgment of the Larger Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of “National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Pranay Sethi and others” [2018   (3)   Mh.L.J.   70],   compensation   under conventional head needs to be enhanced. 8. For   determining   the   compensation   under the   head   of   loss   of   dependency,   the   age   of   the deceased at the time of death is material.   From

5 fa255.07 the   Secondary   School   Certificate   of   the   deceased (Exh.48), it becomes clear that the date of birth of   deceased   is   6.2.1959.    He   died  on   29.6.1998. Therefore, on the date of death, the deceased was above age of 39 but below age of 40.  Therefore, in view of legal position settled by the Apex Court in the case of  “Smt. Sarla Verma and Ors. Vs Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr.” [AIR 2009 SC 3104], proper multiplier applicable in the case at hand is 15. 9. From   the   evidence   of   claimant   Meenatai Kadu   (PW   1)   it   emerges   that   the   deceased   was agriculturist as well as he used to run small scale industry   in   the   stile   “Gajanan   Metal   Caps   and Samarth   Traders”   for   supply   of   bottle   caps   and other material to the sugar factory.  In support of her contention, the claimants have filed copy of annual   statement   of   Baburao   Bapuji   Tanpure   Co­ operative   Sugar   Factory,   Shivajinagar,   Rahuri (Exh.54)   and   certificate   issued   by   Dr.   Vithalrao Vikhe   Patil   Cooperative   Sugar   Factory,   which indicates that the deceased used to run industry in

6 fa255.07 the   style,   “Gajanan   Metal   Caps   and   Samarth Traders”.   Even   the   notice   issued   by   Pravara Cooperative   Bank   to   the   deceased   shows   that   the deceased   was   the   Proprietor   of   Samarth   Traders. Certificate   issued   by   Pravara   Phale   Bhajipala Utpadak   and   Prakriya   Kharedi   Vikri   Shetkari Sahakari   Sanstha   Ltd.   Loni   Khurd   (Exh.57)   shows that   in   between   1991   to   1997   deceased   sold   out grapes of worth Rs.2 Lac to Rs.73,000/­ through the said society.  Even 7/12 extracts (Exh.52/1 and 2) shows that the deceased used to take yield of sugar cane, grapes from his agricultural land. 10. The above material on record is certainly sufficient   to   hold   that   the   deceased   was   multi facet personality and he had source of income from the   agricultural  land   as   well  as   from  his  small scale industry.  As no income tax return is filed by the claimants, the exact annual income of the deceased cannot be ascertained.  However, the Apex Court in “Jagdish vs Mohan and others” [(2018) 4 SCC 571] assessed the notional income of carpenter at the rate of Rs.6,000/­ per month.  Therefore, in

7 fa255.07 the case at hand notional income of the deceased from   various   sources   cannot   be   less   than Rs.10,000/­ per month.   So also, as the deceased was below age of 40 years at the time of his death, in   view   of   law   settled   by   Apex   Court,   deceased being self­employed person, 40 per cent income is to be added in his monthly salary.  Thus, monthly income   of   the   deceased   is   assessed   as Rs.10,000+4000=14000/­.  Thus, annual income of the deceased is assessed as 14000x12=168000/­. 11. In   the   family   of   the   deceased, undisputedly

there

are

three

dependents. Therefore, in accordance with the settled law by Apex   Court   in Smt.Sarla   Verma and National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Pranay Sethi  (supra), 1/3rd amount is to be deducted towards personal expenses of   the   deceased.     The   1/3rd amount   towards personal expenses comes to Rs.56000/­. Thus actual annual   income   of   the   deceased   is   168000­ 56000=112000/­. 12. After applying multiplier of 15, loss of

8 fa255.07 dependency   is   assessed   as   Rs.112000x15=1680000/­. In addition to this, as per law settled by the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Pranay Sethi under conventional head the appellants are   also   entitled   to   Rs.40000/­   for   loss   of consortium,   Rs.15000/­   for   loss   of   estate   and Rs.15000/­   towards   funeral   expenses.     Thus,   the appellants   are   entitled   to   total   compensation   as under : Loss of dependency : Rs.1680000.00 Loss of consortium : Rs.  40000.00 Loss of Estate : Rs.  15000.00 Funeral Expesnces : Rs.  15000.00 ___________________ Total : Rs.1750000.00 (Rs.Seventeen Lac Fifty Thousand only ___________________ 13. The   petitioners   are   entitled   to   total compensation   of   Rs.17,50,000/­   with   interest thereon at the rate of nine per cent per annum from the date of filing of petition till deposit of the amount.   This compensation shall be inclusive of compensation   awarded   to   the   claimants   under   no

9 fa255.07 fault liability. 14. Before parting with the judgment, I must make it clear that the ratio of the judgment in the case  Sushila Mendhe vs National Insurance Company Limited  (supra) is not applicable in the case at hand due to distinguishing facts that in that case employer   of   the   deceased   was   examined   and   his evidence   was   relied   by   the   Court   to   assess   the monthly income of the deceased as nine per cent per annum.  In the case at hand, question of examining of employer by claimants does not arise. 15. However,   as   observed   above,   the appellants/claimants   are   entitled   to   total compensation   of   Rs.17,50,000/­   with   interest thereon at the rate of nine per cent per annum from the   date   of   filing   of   petition   till   its realization.  It follows that this appeal deserves to be allowed. 16. Accordingly,   appeal   is   allowed.     The compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims

10 fa255.07 Tribunal,   Ahmednagar   in   Motor   Accident   Claim Petition No. 926 of 1999 is enhanced to the extent of Rs.17,50,000/­ (Rs. Seventeen Lac Fifty Thousand Only) with interest at the rate of nine percent per annum   from   the   date   of   filing   of   petition   till deposit of the amount.  This compensation shall be inclusive of compensation received by the claimants under   no   fault   liability.   Award   passed   by   the Tribunal be modified in above said terms.  Deficit court

fee

recovered

from

the appellants/claimants.  Claimants are at liberty to withdraw the compensation amount deposited in this Court after the period of appeal is over.  Appeal is disposed of in above terms.  No costs. [SUNIL K.KOTWAL, J.] dbm