Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Agricultural Market Committee,

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 3725/2006 The New India Assurance Company Limited, through its Jaipur Regional Office: 330000, 2nd Floor, Nehru Place, Tonk Road, Jaipur (Raj.) -302015 ----Appellant/Non-Claimant No.3 Versus 1. Smt Kaushal Sharma, W/o Mahendra Prakash Sharma, aged 52 years 2. Mahendra Prakash Sharma, S/o Mangat Ram Sharma, aged 55 years. 3. Abhimanyu Sharma, S/o Mahendra Prakash Sharma, aged 18 years ----Respondents/Claimants 4. Sita Ram Rawat, S/o Umrao, B/c Gurjar, aged about 32 years, R/o Village Paniyala, Tehsil Kotputli, District Jaipur (Raj.) ……….Respondent/Non-claimant No.1 5. Umrao, S/o Birbal, B/c Gurjar, aged 67 years, R/o Village Paniyala, Tehsil Kotputli, District Jaipur (Raj.) ….Respondent/Non-Claimant No.2 Connected With S.B. Cross Objection (Civil) No. 109/2011 The New India Assurance Company Limited, through its Jaipur Regional Office: 330000, 2nd Floor, Nehru Place, Tonk Road, Jaipur (Raj.) -302015 ----Appellant/Non-Claimant no.3 Versus 1. Smt Kaushal Sharma, W/o Mahendra Prakash Sharma, aged 52 years 2. Mahendra Prakash Sharma, S/o Mangat Ram Sharma, aged 55 years. 3. Abhimanyu Sharma, S/o Mahendra Prakash Sharma, aged 18 years All R/o House NO. 1653 Sainik Colony, Sector No. 49, Faridabad (Hariyana) ----Respondents/Claimants 4. Sita Ram Rawat, S/o Umrao, B/c Gurjar, aged about 32 years,

(2 of 6) [CMA-3725/2006] R/o Village Paniyala, Tehsil Kotputli, District Jaipur (Raj.) ……….Respondent/Non-claimant No.1 5. Umrao, S/o Birbal, B/c Gurjar, aged 67 years, R/o Village Paniyala, Tehsil Kotputli, District Jaipur (Raj.) ….Respondent/Non-Claimant No.2 For Insurance Company : Mr. Sukhdev Singh Solanki on behalf of Mr. Vizzy Agarwal For claimants/cross- objectors : Mr. Ram Sharan Sharma HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Judgment 28/05/2019 Vide this order above mentioned appeal as well as cross objections would be disposed of. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has submitted that the Insurance Company was not liable to indemnify the insured as the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid driving licence, at the time of accident. The amount of compensation granted by the Tribunal to the claimants was on a higher side. Learned counsel for the claimants/cross-objectors has submitted that amount of compensation granted by the Tribunal was liable to be enhanced. Insurance Company was liable to indemnify the insured as the driver of the offending vehicle was holding a valid driving licence at the time of accident. In support of his arguments, learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in (2017) 14 Supreme Court Cases 663 in case of Mukund Dewangan Versus Oriental Insurance Company Limited, decided on July 3, 2017, wherein it was held as under:-

(3 of 6) [CMA-3725/2006] “60. Thus we answer the questions which are referred to us thus: (i) ‘Light motor vehicle’ as defined in section 2(21) of the Act would include a transport vehicle as per the weight prescribed in section 2(21) read with section 2(15) and 2(48). Such transport vehicles are not excluded from the definition of the light motor vehicle by virtue of Amendment Act No.54/1994. (ii) A transport vehicle and omnibus, the gross vehicle weight of either of which does not exceed 7500 kg. would be a light motor vehicle and also motor car or tractor or a road roller, ‘unladen weight’ of which does not exceed 7500 kg. and holder of a driving licence to drive class of “light motor vehicle” as provided in section 10(2)(d) is competent to drive a transport vehicle or omnibus, the gross vehicle weight of which does not exceed 7500 kg. or a motor car or tractor or road-roller, the “unladen weight” of which does not exceed 7500 kg. That is to say, no separate endorsement on the licence is required to drive a transport vehicle of light motor vehicle class as enumerated above. A licence issued undersection

10(2)(d) continues

valid after Amendment Act 54/1994 and 28.3.2001 in the form.(iii) The effect of the amendment made by virtue of Act No.54/1994 w.e.f. 14.11.1994 while substituting clauses (e) to (h) of section 10(2) which contained “medium goods vehicle” in section 10(2)(e), medium passenger motor vehicle in section 10(2)(f), heavy goods vehicle in section 10(2)(g)and “heavy passenger motor vehicle” in section 10(2)(h) with expression ‘transport vehicle’ as substituted in section 10(2) (e) related only to the aforesaid substituted classes only. It does not exclude transport vehicle, from the purview of section 10(2)(d) and section 2(41) of the Act i.e. light motor vehicle.(iv) The effect of amendment of Form 4 by insertion of “transport vehicle” is related only to the categories which were substituted in the year 1994 and the procedure to obtain driving licence for transport vehicle of class of “light motor vehicle” continues to be the same as it was and has not been changed and there is no requirement to obtain separate endorsement to drive transport vehicle, and if a driver is holding licence to drive light motor vehicle, he can drive transport vehicle of such class without any endorsement to that effect.” Claimants had filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, seeking compensation on account of death of Abhishek Sharma in the motor vehicle accident which had occurred on 13.08.2004. Vide award dated 14.09.2006, Tribunal has allowed the claim petition filed by the claimants and granted them compensation to the tune of Rs. 31,91,000/-. Hence, appeal has been filed by the Insurance company seeking its exoneration to indemnify the

(4 of 6) [CMA-3725/2006] insured, whereas, the claimants have filed the cross objection seeking enhancement of compensation amount. Offending vehicle-in-question is described as light commercial vehicle in the registration certificate Exhibit-08. Unladen weight of the offending vehicle is 1,780 kilograms and its laden weight is 2,750 kilograms. As per Exhibit-09, Sitaram, driver of the offending vehicle was duly authorised to drive a light motor vehicle. In view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mukund Dewangan case (supra), the driving licence held by the driver of the offending vehicle was a valid driving licnece as the term ‘light motor vehicle’ would also include ‘transport vehicle’ of such class. The gross weight of the offending vehicle did not exceed 7,500 kilograms. Hence, no separate endorsement on the licence was required authorising the driver to drive a light transport vehicle of such class. Thus, the tribunal has rightly held that the Insurance Company was liable to indemnify the insured. The next question that requires consideration is with regard the amount of compensation liable to be received by the claimants. Deceased Abhishek Sharma was aged about 27 years, at the time of accident. Hence, appropriate multiplier to work out the amount of compensation would be ‘17’. Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased as Rs. 24,283/- per month in view of the salary certificate Exhibit-12 after deducting income tax. Claimants are the parents and younger brother of the deceased. Hence, out of the income of the deceased, one-half was liable to be deducted towards his personal expenses and the

(5 of 6) [CMA-3725/2006] remaining half was available to the claimants towards their dependency. Thus, the dependency of the claimants comes to Rs. 12,141/- X 12 X 17 = Rs. 24,76,764/-. Claimants would be further entitled to receive an addition of 40% of the said amount towards loss of future prospects of the deceased and the said amount comes to Rs. 9,90,705/-. Claimants would be further entitled to receive Rs. 15,000/- towards funeral expenses. Thus, the claimants would be entitled to receive, in all, Rs. 24,76,764/- + Rs. 9,90,705/- + Rs. 15,000/- = Rs. 34,82,469/- by way of compensation. Accordingly S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 3725/2006 filed by the Insurance Company is dismissed and S.B. Cross Objection No. 109/2011 filed by the claimants/cross objectors is allowed. Impugned award dated 14.09.2006 is modified to the extent that the claimants would be entitled to receive Rs. 34,82,469/- by way of compensation instead of Rs. 31,91,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal. The remaining terms and conditions of the award shall remain unchanged. It is further ordered that the share of enhanced amount of compensation of the claimants be invested in separate Fixed Deposit Receipts with some Nationalized Bank, initially for a period of three years and the interest accrued on the deposit shall be paid to them on monthly basis. Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Jaipur in the interest of the claimants shall invest the amount in Fixed Deposit Receipts in the name of the claimants in some Nationalized Bank. The Secretary, District Legal Services Authority Jaipur shall further apprise the claimants with regard to the amount which has been

(6 of 6) [CMA-3725/2006] granted to them by way of enhancement and the fact that the enhanced amount of compensation shall be invested in Fixed Deposit Receipts in some Nationalized Bank for their benefit. (SABINA) J. Sudha/72-73