The Agricultural Market Committee vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI [Civil Writ Jurisdiction] W.P.(C) No. 524 of 2010 1. Lakhi Das, W/o Late Ganesh Das 2.Pinki Kumari Das, D/o Late Ganesh Das 3.Itu Kumari Das, D/o Late Ganesh Das 4.Akash Kumar Das, S/o Late Ganesh Das Petitioner nos.2, 3 and 4 are minor and are represented by their mother and natural guardian, i.e. Lakhi Das (Petitioner no.1) All are residents of C/o Sanjoy Das, Road No.3, Adarsh Colony, Check Post, Mango, P.O. & P.S. Mango, Town Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum .... .. ... Petitioners Versus 1.Ravindra Prasad Saine, S/o Sanju Prasad Saine 2.ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. .. ... ... Respondents ........... CORAM :HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO ......... For the Petitioners : Mr. Ankit Vishal, Advocate For the respondent no.2 : Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate Mr. Sahay Gaurav Piyush, Advocate …... 14/ 19.04.2022. Heard, learned counsel for the parties. The petitioners have preferred the writ petition for enhancement of the compensation award passed by the learned Permanent Lok Adalat at Jamshedur in P.L.A. Case No.74 of 2007 whereby the claimants, namely, 1.Lakhi Das, W/o Late Ganesh Das, 2.Minor Pinki Kumari Das, D/o Late Ganesh Das, 3.Minor Itu Kumari Das, D/o Late Ganesh Das and 4.Minor Akash Kumar Das, S/o Late Ganesh Kumar Das, the minors are being represented by mother and natural guardian have been awarded amount to the tune of Rs.2,88,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of order, if the Insurance Company failed to pay the said amount within a period of 30 days. Learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Ankit Vishal has submitted that deceased- Ganesh Das was a driver of Truck No.JH 05N 9815 owned by respondent no.1 (Ravindra Prasad Saine) which met with an accident on 02.02.2007 near Dharamkanta, Durgapur and FIR was lodged on 03.02.2007 being Durgapur P.S. Case No.25 of 2007 under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and the vehicle was insured. Learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Ankit Vishal has further submitted that accident which took place, even the same is also a criminal act, is covered under the motor vehicle act, in view of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Rita Devi (Smt) & Others vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Another, reported in (2000) 5 SCC 113, paras 10 & 14 of which may profitably be quoted hereunder:-

-2- “10.The question, therefore, is can a murder be an accident in any given case ? There is no doubt that murder, as it is understood, in the common parlance is a felonious act where death is caused with intent and the perpetrators of that act normally have a motive against the victim for such killing. But there are also instances where murder can be by accident on a given set of facts . The difference between a murder which is not an accident and a murder which is an accident, depends on the proximity of the cause of such murder. In our opinion, if the dominent intention of the Act of felony is to kill any particular person then such killing is not an accidental murder but is a murder simplicitor, while if the cause of murder or act of murder was originally not intended and the same was caused in furtherance of any other felonious act then such murder is an accidental murder. 14.Applying the principles laid down in the above cases to the facts of the case in hand, we find that the deceased, a driver of the auto rickshaw, was duty bound to have accepted the demand of fare paying passengers to transport them to the place of their destination. During the course of this duty, if the passengers had decided to commit an act of felony of stealing the auto rickshaw and in the course of achieving the said object of stealing the auto rickshaw, they had to eliminate the driver of the auto rickshaw then it cannot but be said that the death so caused to the driver of the auto rickshaw was an accidental murder. The stealing of the auto rickshaw was the object of the felony and the murder that was caused in the said process of stealing the auto rickshaw is only incidental to the act of stealing of the auto rickshaw. Therefore, it has to be said that on the facts and circumstances of this case the death of the deceased (Dasarath Singh) was caused accidentally in the process of committing the theft of the auto rickshaw.”

Learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Ankit Vishal has further submitted, that deceased was having monthly income of Rs.9,500/- and the vehicle was insured before the ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. vide Policy No.3003/0044983/00/000 valid from 22.04.2006 to 21.04.2007. Learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Ankit Vishal has further submitted, that deceased died leaving behind four dependents. The family comprises of five persons including the deceased, as such, the income has to be deducted 1/4th as per the judgment, passed by the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt) & Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Another, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 at para 30. Learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Ankit Vishal has further submitted that so far multiplier is concerned, the same shall be considered as per the age of the deceased, who was 45 years of the age, as such, in view of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) at para 42, the multiplier ought to have been 14. Learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Ankit Vishal has further submitted that future prospect has to be calculated, in view of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors., reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 at para 59.4 whereby since age of deceased was between 40 to 50 years and doing was private business, as such, he was entitled for 25% Future Prospect. Learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Ankit Vishal has further submitted that that under the conventional head Rs.70,000/- i.e. loss of Estate Rs.15,000/-, loss of consortium Rs.40,000/- and for funeral expenses Rs.15,000/- is to be granted, in view

-3- of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (Supra) para 59.8, while the learned Tribunal has granted Rs.15,000/- only which may be enhanced to Rs.70,000/. Learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Ankit Vishal has further submitted that all these amounts is to be paid @ 7.5% simple interest per annum from the date of filing of the petition till its realization , in view of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Dharampal & Sons vs. U.P. Transport Corporation, reported in 2008, JCR 4 79 SC/ (2008) 12 SCC 208. Learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Ankit Vishal has further submitted that some amount has been paid to the petitioner that may be deducted by the Insurance Company and enhancement amount may be paid within a reasonable time as it is a benevolent legislation. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 2, Mr. Amit Kumar Das assisted by learned counsel, Mr. Sahay Gaurav Piyush has submitted that after the payment was made, the claimants have preferred the writ petition, as such, it is not maintainable. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 2, Mr. Amit Kumar Das assisted by learned counsel, Mr. Sahay Gaurav Piyush has further submitted that so far claim of income of deceased to the tune of Rs.9,500/- per month is concerned, the learned Permanent Lok Adalat has considered it as Rs.3000/- per month, as such, in absence of any evidence, the same may not be enhanced. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 2, Mr. Amit Kumar Das assisted by learned counsel, Mr. Sahay Gaurav Piyush has thus submitted that this writ petition may be dismissed, as the same does not require any interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. After hearing, learned counsel for the parties, this Court has considered the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Chameli Devi vs. Jivrail Mian, reported in 2019 (4) TAC 724 SC, where for accident of the year, 2001, the income of a Carpenter has been considered to be Rs.5,000/- per month and here is a case of driver, who lost his life on 02.02.2007, as such, this Court has no confusion in considering the income of the deceased to be Rs.9,500/- thus, annual income comes to Rs.9500/- x 12 = Rs.1,14,000/-. At that time the income tax was zero up to Rs.1 lac, as such, Rs.14,000/- was taxable @ 10%, thus total annual income after deduction of income tax comes to Rs.1,14,000/- - Rs.1400/- = Rs1,12,600/-. Accordingly, the fresh calculation are as follows:-

-4- Annual Income Rs.1,12,600/- Future Prospect @ 25% as the age of deceased was between 40 to 50 years [National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 at para 59.4] Rs.1,12,600/- + Rs.1,12,600/- x 25% = Rs.1,40,750/-. 1/4 deduction towards personal and living expenses [Sarla Verma (Smt) & others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & another, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 at para 30] Rs.1,40,750/- minus Rs.35,187/- = Rs.1,05,563/- Multiplier 14 as deceased was in the age group of 41-45 years [Sarla Verma (Smt) & others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & another, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 at para 42] Rs.1,05,563/- x 14 = Rs.14,77,882/- Conventional Head [National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 at para 59.8 i.e. loss of Estate- Rs.15,000/-, loss of consortium- Rs.40,000/- and funeral expense- Rs.15,000/-] Rs.70,000/- Total Compensation Amount Rs.14,77,882

Rs.70,000/-

= Rs.15,47,882/-.

The aforesaid amount i.e. Rs.15,47,882/- shall be paid along with interest @7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition i.e. 02.04.2007 till its realization, in view of judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Dharampal (supra). However, the amount already paid by the Insurance Company shall be deducted and the balance amount which has accrued because of the enhancement made by this Court shall be paid by the Insurance Company within a reasonable period. The instant writ petition stands allowed. (Kailash Prasad Deo, J.) R.S.