The Commissioner of Income tax, vs. M/s. Maruthi Wines,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

Appeal from Order No. 445/2010

Smt. Jethi Devi & Others

…. Appellants

Versus

Smt. Raji Devi and Others

.… Respondents

Mr. Parvej Akram, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. Sandeep Kothari, Advocate for the appellants/claimants. None for the respondent no. 1. Mr. Sarvesh Agarwal, Advocate, for the insurance company/respondents 2 & 3.

With Appeal from Order No. 444/2010

Smt. Shiv Dei & Others

…. Appellants

Versus

Smt. Raji Devi and Others

.… Respondents

Mr. Parvej Akram, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. Sandeep Kothari, Advocate for the appellants/claimants. None for the respondent no. 1. Mr. Sarvesh Agarwal, Advocate, for the insurance company/ respondents 2 & 3.

February 16, 2017

Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.

Both these appeals are inter-connected as have arisen out of the same accident, wherein the impugned judgments and orders dated 29.7.2010 (rendered separately by the learned Tribunal) have been challenged. Incident occurred on 20.7.2007 at 8 PM on the serpentine hilly road of District Tehri Garhwal when the Max Jeep bearing no. UA07R-8623 met with the accident resulting in death of Shiv Singh, aged 46 years, and Trepan Singh, aged 45 years. Their dependants instituted the claim petitions before the learned Tribunal. Identical quantum of compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,61,000/- was granted in both the matters against the insurance

company and this has been challenged by the dependants in the appeals duo. I have heard learned Counsels of both the parties and perused the papers on record. Deceased Shiv Singh was said to be a contractor of ‘D’ category in PWD. Nothing has been proved regarding his agricultural income because the details of the agricultural land have not been brought on the record. By contractorship as well, there was no definite income. No income-tax return was filed. So, the learned Tribunal has appropriately assumed the base income of rupees three thousand per month. In another case, deceased Trepan Singh was also said to be a contractor in the Irrigation Department, but nothing has come out to prove that factum. So, in this matter also, the learned Tribunal applied the notional income of rupees three thousand per month. Since the number of dependants were 5 and 6 respectively, so the Tribunal has rightly deducted 1/4th towards the personal expenses and has correctly applied the multiplier of ‘13’, as is envisaged in Sarla Varma case. Apart from the above, rupees five thousand plus rupees five thousand have also been granted on other scores. I do not find any infirmity in the impugned judgments of the learned Tribunal. Consequently, these appeals are hereby dismissed. Let the LCRs be sent back.

(Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.) Prabodh