Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
MAC.APP.789/2006, MAC.APP.790-791/2006 Page 1 of 5
$~A-6 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision:18.12.2014 + MAC.APP. 789/2006, MAC.APP.790-791/2006
URVASHI GOEL & ORS
..... Appellant Through Mr.K.L.Nandwani and Mr.Manish Kaushik, Advocates.
versus
PARMOD KUMAR & ORS.
..... Respondent
Through Mr.J.P.N.Shahi, Advocate for R-3
Mr.Shadab Khan, Advocate for R-4
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH
JAYANT NATH, J. (ORAL) 1. The present appeal is filed seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal in its Award dated 4.8.2006. 2. The brief facts are that Shri R.L.Goel the deceased who was 42 years and a Chartered Accountant by profession was while driving his own santro car with other relatives was going from Delhi to Khatroli on 4.3.2003. At Dadri, District Meerut the car was hit by a bus said to be driven at a very high speed in a careless and negligent manner. The deceased R.L.Goel died on the spot and the other occupants of the car suffered injuries. 3. Based on the evidence on record the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.11,54,750/-. The details of compensation awarded is as follows:-
MAC.APP.789/2006, MAC.APP.790-791/2006 Page 2 of 5
Loss of dependency
Rs.11,04,750/- Loss of love and affection Rs.15,000/- Loss of consortium
Rs.15,000/- Loss of estate
Rs.15,000/- Funeral expenses
Rs.5,000/- Total
Rs.11,54,750/-
Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the income of the deceased has been erroneously calculated. He submits that the last Income Tax Return for the year 2003-04 has been wrongly discarded by the Tribunal which showed an annual income of the deceased at Rs.2,64,700/-. He submits that the deceased was a Chartered Accountant aged 42 years and a professional normally starts to peak in his career only around the age of 45. Hence, there was no reason to discard the last Income Tax Return. In fact learned counsel submits that the assessed income could have been taken at a much higher level keeping in view the professional background of the deceased. He further submits that the compensation for non pecuniary damages, namely, loss of consortium, loss of love and affection, loss of estate and funeral expenses is grossly inadequate. 5. He also submits that the mother has wrongly been discarded and has not been taken as a dependent of the deceased and that 1/3rd of the income has been wrongly deducted for personal expenses of the deceased. He states that this should have been 1/4th. 6. Regarding the issue of loss of dependency, the award took the income of the deceased as Rs.73,650/- based on the income tax returns for the year 2002- 03 and Rs.68,326/- based on the income tax returns of the year 2001-2002.
MAC.APP.789/2006, MAC.APP.790-791/2006 Page 3 of 5
As per the individual Income Tax Return, the gross total income of the deceased for 2001-02 was Rs.1,37,104/- and for the assessment year 2002-03 it was Rs.1,41,992/- respectively. From this amount the Tribunal deducted the income on account of renting of a car inasmuch as there was no taxi in the name of the deceased and it was not permissible to rent out the santro car as it was a personal car. The Tribunal also did not accept the income on speculation trade as it was not a regular income. Similarly, the interest on fixed deposit receipt was also reduced from the total income. 8. Income Tax Return for the year 2003-04, Ex.P-5 was for Rs.2,64,700/-. This return was filed in 2003 after the death of the deceased which took place on 4.3.2003. The said income tax return shows a total income of Rs.2,64,700/-. The Tribunal discarded this income as per the last return for 2003-04 holding that it appears to be inflated as it has been filed after the death of the deceased. 9. It is a matter of fact that the deceased was a Chartered Accountant. A professional like a Chartered Accountant, a Doctor or a Lawyer, etc normally starts earning substantially in his forties and thereafter which is the period when most professionals are able to peak in their profession. This aspect is a common phenomenon. 10. Keeping in view this background the enhanced income for 2003-04 of Rs.2,64,700 as shown by the Income Tax Return cannot be completely discarded, as done by the Tribunal. 11. Similarly, income on account of hiring of the car and income from speculation are also something which are personal to the deceased, based on his special knowledge and skills. There would normally be no reason to discard the said income. Further, there can be no reason to discard income shown in IT
MAC.APP.789/2006, MAC.APP.790-791/2006 Page 4 of 5
Returns from renting of the car on the ground that it was not registered as a taxi. Off course, income on interest on fixed deposit is an income which will continue to be earned by the dependents of the deceased. 12. In the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, I assess the income of the deceased based on the three ITRs as follows:- 2001-02
Rs.1,37,104/- 2002-03
Rs.1,41,992/- 2003-04
Rs.2,64,700/- 13. The average comes to Rs.1,81,265/-; rounded off to Rs.1,81,000/-. The annual income on interest from fixed deposit is Rs.18,000/-. I deduct this amount from the sum of Rs.1,81,000/-. Hence the relevant income comes to Rs.1,63,000/- P.A. 14. Coming to the issue of loss of dependency and the contention of their being four dependants and not three as taken by the Tribunal, a perusal of the memo of parties before the Tribunal shows that the claim petition is filed by the widow and two minor children of the deceased. The mother has been shown as a respondent with a different address altogether. In her evidence the widow PW-1 has filed her affidavit by way of evidence. In her affidavit she nowhere states that the mother is dependent on the deceased. No evidence was led by the mother. There are no reasons to interfere with the findings of the Tribunal deducting 1/3rd of the income of the deceased for personal expenses of the deceased. 15. Loss of dependency would hence be calculated on the income of Rs.1,63,000/-. Keeping in view the age of the deceased and the judgment of the Supreme Court in Rajesh & Others vs. Rajbir Singh & Ors. 2013 9 SCC 54
MAC.APP.789/2006, MAC.APP.790-791/2006 Page 5 of 5
the income would be enhanced by 30% for future prospects. 16. Loss of dependency would hence be Rs.21,19,005/- [(Rs.1,63,000 + 30/100 -1/3) x 15]. 17. As far as the issue of loss of consortium and loss of love and affection is concerned, I enhance the compensation from 15,000/- to Rs.1,00,000/- respectively. The above would be just fair and reasonable. 18. Total compensation would now be as under:- Loss of dependency
Rs.21,19,005/- Loss of love and affection Rs.1,00,000/- Loss of consortium
Rs.1,00,000/- Loss of estate
Rs.15,000/- Funeral expenses
Rs.5,000/- Total
Rs.23,39,005/-
The appeal stands disposed of. 20. The respondent/insurance company shall deposit the enhanced compensation alongwith interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till deposit in Court before the Registrar General of this Court. On receipt of the said amount the Registrar general shall disburse the amount to the claimants. Rs.1 lac each with proportionate interest shall be paid to Appellant 2 and 3. Rs.2 lacs with proportionate interest shall be paid to Respondent no. 5, the mother of the deceased. The balance enhanced compensation shall be paid to appellant no. 1.
JAYANT NATH, J. DECEMBER 18, 2014 n