AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R. Basant, J.—Insurance Company is the Appellant. Quantum is the only ground of challenge. Claimants staked a claim for an amount of Rs. 25 lakhs as compensation. The deceased was a civil contractor. He had taken diploma in Civil Engineering. He was an income tax Assessee also. The records produced show that his average declared income for two years prior to the date of accident was Rs. 48,000/-. For the year immediately preceeding death, income tax, return was filed a month after the death of the victim (and even after the filing of the claim petition) showing the income to be Rs. 1,24,990/-. It was asserted that the monthly income was Rs. 15,000/-.
The Tribunal, taking all the relevant circumstances into account accepted that Rs. 8,000/- alone can be reckoned as the monthly income for the purpose of computation of compensation for loss of dependency. The Tribunal took Rs. 8,000/- as monthly income and applying 1/3rd of the income for the personal expenses of the deceased and reckoning 15 as multiplier (considering the age of the deceased as 42 years) directed payment of an amount of Rs. 9,54,000/- as compensation under the head of loss of dependency (Rs. 8,000/- x 2/3 x 12 x 15). A total amount of Rs. 9,79,500/- was ordered to be paid as compensation.
The learned Counsel for the Appellant -Insurance Company contends that the Tribunal has erred in giving credence to the income tax return filed after the death of the deceased (after the filing of the petition also) showing an annual income of Rs. 1,24,990/-. No significance could have been attached to the said return. Appropriate and safe inferences could have been drawn only from the income tax returns filed prior to the death of the deceased, contends the counsel.
We find merit in the contention of the learned Counsel for the Appellant. The subsequent return filed could not safely have been reckoned as an indication, in the absence of any better evidence to draw inferences about the income of the deceased. We do take note of the circumstances that the deceased was as an income tax payee. We do take note of the further circumstance that the declared income for the two previous years was about Rs. 4,000/- per mensem. We do note that he was a person aged about 42 years and he was duly qualified. There was every chance that his income would increase. All these circumstances could have been taken into account. But certainly undue importance could not have been placed on the income tax return filed subsequent to the death of the deceased and subsequent to the filing of this claim petition. An informed decision has to be resorted to. We are satisfied that taking into account the totality of the circumstances, Rs. 6,500/- should have been reckoned as the monthly income. The amount awarded warrants interferance to that extent.
For loss of dependency, the claimants would consequently be entitled only for an amount of Rs. 7,80,000/- (Rs. 6,500 x 12 x 2/3 x 15). All other directions of the Tribunal do not warrant interferance.
In the result:
(a) This appeal is allowed in part.
(b) It is directed that under the head of loss of dependency, the claimants shall be entitled only to an amount of Rs. 7,80,000/- (Rupees seven lakhs eighty thousand only) that is; Rs. 1,74,000/- less than the amount awarded by the Tribunal.
(c) All other directions of the Tribunal are upheld.