AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
G.P. Mittal, J.—The Appeal is for enhancement of compensation of Rs. 16,25,297/- awarded in favour of the Appellants for the death of Manik Chand Jain who died in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 23.05.2003. During inquiry before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) it was claimed that the deceased was aged about 46 years. He was earning Rs. 25,000/- per month from the business of lubricants carried out by him in the name and style of M/s. Lubex India. It was alleged that the deceased Manik Chand Jain was also carrying out business being Karta of HUF in the name of M/s. Manik Chand Jain and Company.
On appreciation of evidence, the Claims Tribunal took the deceased''s income from both the businesses to be Rs. 1,58,492/-, deducted one-fourth towards the personal and living expenses and applied the multiplier of ''13'' to compute the loss of dependency as Rs. 15,45,297/- (1,58,492/- - 39,623/- (being one-fourth) = 1,18,869/- x 13).
The Claims Tribunal declined to grant any increase on account of future prospects as the deceased was a self-employed person. The Claims Tribunal made a provision of Rs. 50,000/- towards transportation of the dead body from Erode, Tamil Nadu, where the death took place and also for the last rites. A sum of Rs. 10,000/- each towards loss to estate, loss of consortium and loss of love and affection was awarded to compute the overall compensation of Rs. 16,25,297/-.
Following contentions are raised on behalf of the Appellants (the Claimants):-
(i) Since there were three members of HUF, the Appellant''s share should have been taken as one-third instead of one-fourth as taken by the Claims Tribunal.
(ii) Since the deceased''s income from business was increasing, the Appellants were entitled to increase of 30% in the deceased''s income to compute the loss of dependency.
I have very carefully gone through the Income Tax Returns (ITRs) filed by M/s. Lubex India alleged to be the Sole Proprietorship concern of the deceased and of Manak Chand Jain and Company (HUF). A perusal of the ITRs shows that a large component of the income was from other sources. What were these other sources, was not disclosed by the Appellants'' Still an answer is available from the ITRs themselves. In as much as, a deduction of Rs. 12,000/- u/s 80L (income from bank interest, dividend, etc. as per the Income Tax Act) in the Assessment Year (AY) 2001-2002 in respect of Ms. Manik Chand Jain and Company (Ex.PW-1/7), a deduction of Rs. 9,000/- from the ITR of AY-2002-03 (Ex.PW-1/8), a deduction of Rs. 12,000/- u/s 80L from the income in the ITR for the AY 2003-04 (Ex.PW-1/9) would reveal that the income from other sources was mainly from interest and dividends. This income would continue to the LRs even after the death of Manak Chand Jain.
Income from business has been reflected in the ITRs filed by M/s. Lubex India as well as by M/s. Manik Chand Jain and Company. The same are extracted hereunder in the tabulated form:-
Income of the deceased from the sole Proprietorship
Assessment Year
Total Income
Income from business
Ex
2000-01
90,637/
31,882/
PW-/16
2001-02
1,24,314/-
20,917/-
PW-1/7A
2002-03
1,25,871/-
75,172/-
PW-1/8A
TOTAL
1,27,971/-
Income of the deceased from HUF
Assessment Year
Total Income
Income from business
Ex
2001-02
91,011
91,011
PW-1/7
2002-03
1,30,461/-
1,30,461/-
PW-1/8
2003-04
1,35,611/-
1,18,303/-
PW-1/9
On the basis of the income reflected in the tabulated form hereinabove, the average income from the Sole Proprietorship business comes to Rs. 42,657/- (1,27,971/- � 3 per year). On making addition of 30% towards the future prospects assuming that there was a quantum jump in the income from 2001-02 and 2002-03 and taking it as an exception to Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, , the loss of dependency on account of Sole Proprietorship business comes to Rs. 5,40,677/- (42,657/- + 30% x 3/4 x 13).
Similarly, even if, the Appellants'' contention raised during the hearing is accepted and the additional document placed on the paper book showing the list of the members of HUF on the date of the death being 3 is accepted; the average HUF income is taken as Rs. 43,487/- and on making addition of 30%, the loss of dependency would come to Rs. 5,51,197/- (43,487/- + 30% x 3/4 x 13).
The overall loss of dependency thus comes to Rs. 10,91,874/- (5,40,677/- + 5,51,197/-) as against a sum of Rs. 15,45,297/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal.
In the circumstances, it cannot be said that the compensation awarded is niggardly or meager. On the other hand, it is evident that if income from other sources as reflected in the ITRs is deducted, the compensation awarded is very liberal. However, in the absence of any Appeal by the Respondent Insurance Company, I would not interfere with the same. It is evident that the Appeal is frivolous. The same is accordingly dismissed.