COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/HYD vs. M/S.AJAY AUTOMATION P LTD

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:156363 Court No. - 44 Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 42 of 1999 Appellant :- Smt. Asha Deve And Others Respondent :- Precious Carrying Corporation Ltd. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Madhav Jain Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J. 1. Heard Sri Madhav Jain, learned counsel for the appellants and perused the judgment and order impugned. 2. The appeal was admitted by the Division Bench of which the undersigned was also stagnated. Notices were issued during that time, again steps were taken despite that none had appeared, this Court directed the matter to proceed ex parte. 3. This appeal, at the behest of the claimant, challenges the judgment and award dated 26.11.1998 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Agra (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') in M.A.C.P No.931 of 1996 awarding a sum of Rs.1,70,000/- as compensation with interest at the rate of 12%. 4. The accident is not in dispute. The issue of negligence decided by the Tribunal is also not in dispute. The only issue to be decided is the quantum of compensation awarded. 5. The accident took place on 03.12.1996. The deceased was 26 years of age and was a gold artisan. Deceased-Ramu Verma, who was 26 years of age left behind him, his widow, one minor son and parents which fact is not in dispute. The Tribunal considered his income to be Rs.15,000/- per annum, deducted Rs.5000/- towards personal expenses of the deceased, granted multiplier of 17 and that is how the Tribunal has calculated the total compensation to be Rs.1,70,000/- 6. Sri Madhav Jain, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the income of the deceased should be considered to be at least Rs.3,500/- per month. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal has not added any amount under the head of future loss of income which should be granted in view of decision in of the Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd.

Vs. Pranay Sethi and others, 2017 LawSuit (SC) 1093. It is also submitted that the Tribunal has applied the multiplier of 17 which is not in dispute in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, 2009 LawSuit (SC). He further submits that the tribunal should be deducted 1/3rd personal expenses and granted multiplier of 17. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and considered the factual data. It is an admitted position of fact that the Insurance Company has accepted the award and has not challenged the same This Court finds that the accident occurred on 03.12.1996 causing death of Ramu Verma who was 26 years of age at the time of accident. The Tribunal has assessed his income to be Rs.15,000/- per annum which according to this Court, in the year of accident, would be at least Rs.2000/- per month as he was Gold Artisan. To which as the deceased was in the age bracket of 26-30, 40% of the income will have to be added in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi (Supra). Looking to the general trend even in Gobald Motor Service Ltd. and another Vs. R.M.K Veluswami and other, 1962 SCR(1) 929, the addition of 40% can be granted. The deduction granted 1/3 as three dependent members of the deceased. The multiplier would be 17 to which looking to the pendency of the matter which has been pending here since more than 30 years. Rs.50,000/- under the head of non pecuniary damages would suffice for claimants. 8. Hence, the total compensation payable to the appellants is computed herein below: i. Annual Income Rs.24,000/- ( Rs.2000/- per month) ii. Percentage towards future prospects : 40% namely Rs.9,600/- iii. Total income : Rs.9,600/- + Rs.24,000/- = Rs.33,600/- iv. Income after deduction of 1/3rd towards personal expenses : Rs.22,400/- v. Multiplier applicable : 17 vi. Loss of dependency: Rs.22,400 x 17 = Rs.3,80,800/- vii. Amount under non pecuniary heads : Rs.50,000/- viii. Total compensation : Rs.4,30,800/-