AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
G.P. Mittal, J.—The Appellants seek enhancement of compensation granted in respect of the death of Swadhin Mehra who died in an accident which took place on 23.10.2004. The deceased was aged 54 years at the time of the accident.
It is urged by the learned counsel for the Appellant that the deceased''s income is claimed to be Rs. 1,25,000/- per annum as he was carrying on the business of paints and hardware. The deceased had two sons, one of them was working as an Engineer in USA. Wife of the deceased was working in Hotel Taj Palace and getting a salary of Rs. 11,000/- per month. In the absence of any reliable evidence in support of the deceased''s income, the Tribunal took the minimum wages of an unskilled worker to arrive at the deceased''s income and applied the multiplier of "11" to calculate the loss of dependency.
It is urged by the learned counsel for the Appellant that even if there is no evidence to prove that the deceased had an income of Rs. 1,25,000/-, the fact that the deceased had brought up two sons who were very well-placed would be sufficient to show that he had substantial income. The learned counsel for the Appellant placed reliance on Smt. Asha Gupta, Master Rahul Gupta and Master Rohit Gupta Vs. Mr. Ramji Lal and The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (MTPCO), . It is contended that even if the Appellants'' case is considered u/s 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1/3rd income of the surviving spouse can be taken as the deceased''s income.
In the Assessment Year 2004-05, an income above Rs. 60,000/- per annum was taxable. Neither it was the case of the Appellant that the deceased was an Income Tax assessee nor any document was placed on record to show that any income tax was paid by the deceased. Asha Gupta & Ors. V. Ramji Lal & Anr.(supra) is not attracted to the facts of the present case as in Asha Gupta(supra) it was established on record that the deceased was maintaining two cars, was paying rent @ Rs. 1,400/- per month and fees of two sons @ Rs. 300/- per month. It was in these circumstances, that the deceased''s income was taken as Rs. 55,000/-
1/3rd of the income of the surviving spouse cannot be taken as the income of the deceased for the reason that this Petition was not filed u/s 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. Moreover, there is a limit of Rs. 40,000/- as income if any claimant approaches the Court u/s 163-A of the Act.
The Tribunal rightly took the deceased''s income as per the Minimum Wages Act. Since there was no dependent on the deceased, in fact there is no loss of dependency and the Appellant was entitled to compensation under the head of loss of his estate on the basis of the judgment of Karnataka High Court in A. Manavalagan v. A. Krishnamurthy & Ors. (2005) ACC 304 and of this Court in Keith Rowe V. Prashant Sagar & Ors., MAC APP No. 601/2007 decided on 15.01.2010.
The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal was quite benevolent in taking 1/3rd of the deceased''s income towards personal expenses. Although, the deceased''s children were well-settled and the wife was also earning, the amount of compensation of Rs. 1 lakh under the head of loss of love and affection was also excessive. The compensation awarded was more than adequate.
The Appeal is without any merit; it is accordingly dismissed. I refrain from imposing any cost upon the Appellant as she is the deceased''s widow.