Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh v. 1 - Paras Ram Dhruv S/o Sahdev Dhruv Aged About 43 Years R/o Village
Case Details
-1- Digitally signed by REKHA SINGH 2025:CGHC:6514 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 750 of 2023 1 - Smt. Ganeshwari Bai Verma W/o Gaindram Verma Aged About 50 Years R/o Village - Ghoghre, Police Station Chhuikhadan, Tahsil- Chhuikhadan, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 - Paras Ram Dhruv S/o Sahdev Dhruv Aged About 43 Years R/o Village - Madhuban, Tahsil Bhatapara, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh 2 - Vivek Agrawal S/o Lakeshwar Prasad Agrawal Aged About 49 Years R/o 107, Gandhi Mandir Ward, Near Aditya Hospital Bhatapara, Tahsil Bhatapara, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh 3 - The New India Insurance Company Ltd. Branch Office - Ambedkar Chowk Near Union Bank Bhatapara, Tahsil Bhatapara, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh
Legal Reasoning
4 - Smt. Neha Verma Wd/o Lt. Lekhram Verma Aged About 21 Years R/o Village - Ghoghre, Police Station Chhuikhadan, Tahsil- Chhuikhadan, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Appellant/Claimant For Respondent No.1 &2 For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Akash Shrivastava, Advocate : Mr. Vivek Shrivastava, Advocate : Mr. Dashrath Gupta, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board -2- 05.02.2025 1) Heard. 2) The appellant/claimant has filed this appeal against the award dated 03.01.2023 passed by the learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Khairagarh, District Khairagarh-Chhuikhadan-Gandai (C.G.) in Claim Case No.33/2022 for enhancement of compensation. 3) The facts of the present case are that on 14.04.2022 at about 7:30 a.m. when the deceased Lekhram Verma along with his father was going for treatment on his motorcycle bearing registration No.C.G.-08-AS-1303 towards Paddy Procurement Centre at Village Mandrakuhi, the vehicle bearing registration No.C.G.-4-JA-7159 being driven rashly and negligently, dashed the motorbike of the deceased. Consequently, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to death. 4) Respondent No.2 was the owner of the vehicle and the offending vehicle was insured with respondent No.3. The Claimant claimed a sum of Rs.1,74,50,000/- as compensation. The driver, owner as well as the insurance company filed their reply and denied the contents of the application. 5) The learned Tribunal after appreciation of evidence fastened liability with the insurance company as the offending vehicle was insured with it and awarded a compensation of Rs.39,29,000/- with interest @ 7.5% from the date of application till the date of its realization. 6) Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/claimant would argue that the -3- learned Tribunal committed an error of law in assessing the notional income of the deceased. He would further submit that according to Ex.P/13, the income tax return of the year 2021-2022, the net professional income of the deceased was Rs.2,45,150/- whereas, the Tribunal has assessed the monthly income of the deceased to the tune of Rs.20,000/- and the same was on the lower side. He would contend that on other heads, proper compensation was paid by the Tribunal. He would further contend that the correct multiplier was applied and 1/3rd amount from the notional income was deducted as there were only two dependents. 7) On the other hand, Mr. Gupta, the learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company would submit that there is a difference of only Rs.5,150/- and in round figure, Rs.20,000/- monthly income was assessed by the learned Tribunal and therefore, there is no need to revisit the award passed by the learned Tribunal. 8) Mr. Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.1 & 2 would support the contentions made by Mr. Gupta. 9) I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records. 10)The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Malarvizhi and others Vs. United India Insurance Company Limited and another, 2020 (4) SCC 228 and Anjali and others Vs. Lokendra Rathod and others, 2022 SCC Online SC 1683, held that the income tax return being statutory document is admissible and the Court should give preference to such document. -4- 11)In the matter of Malarvizhi (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 10 held as under:- “10.The Tribunal proceeded to determine the agricultural income arising from 36.76 acres of land on the basis of two judgments of the High Court. The Tribunal arrived at two different figures by applying the decisions and proceeded to determine the agricultural income on an average of the two amounts. The Tribunal superimposed a possible value of income from agricultural land despite a clear indication in the income tax returns of the income from agricultural land. The method adopted by the Tribunal is not sustainable in law. On the other hand, the High Court has proceeded on the basis of the income reflected in the income tax returns for the assessment year 1997-1998. The relevant portion of the return reads: “Income from House property – Rs. 1,920 Business profit (other than 14.b) - Rs.1,21,071 Net Agricultural income – Rs. 88,140” The tax return indicates an annual income of Rs 2,11,131 in the relevant assessment year. Mr Jayanth Muth Raj, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant contended that other documents were marked which reflected the income of the deceased. We are in agreement with the High Court that the determination must proceed on the basis of the income tax return, where available. The income tax return is a statutory document on which reliance may be placed to determine the annual income of the deceased. To the benefit of the appellants, the High Court has proceeded on the basis of the income tax return for the assessment year 1997-1998 and not 1999-2000 and 2000- 2001 which reflected a reduction in the annual income of the deceased.” 12)The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Anjali (supra), in para 10 observed thus:- “10.Hence, this Court is of the opinion that the deceased’s annual income be fixed at Rs.1,18,261/-, approx. Rs.9,855/- per month keeping in mind the deceased’s Income Tax Return for the year 2009-2010.” 13)In the present case according to the income tax return of the year 2021-22, -5- the net professional income of the deceased prior to the date of the accident was Rs.2,45,150/-. The learned Tribunal has assessed the monthly income of the deceased to the tune of Rs.20,000/- and assessed the notional income to the tune of Rs.2,40,000/- 14)Taking into consideration the submissions made by Mr. Akash Shrivastava, and the income tax return of the year 2021-22 vide Ex.P/13, the compensation is revisited herein below:- 1. 2. 3. As per Income Tax Return (2021-22) RS,2,45,150/- Yearly Income 40% Future Prospect Rs.2,45,150/- Rs.2,45,150 x 40 % 100 = Rs.98,060/- 4. After Future prospect Rs.3,43,210/- 5. Deduction 1/3rd Rs.3,43,210 x 1/3 = Rs1,14,403/- 6. After deduction income Rs.2,28,807/- 7. Multiplier of 17 8. Total Dependency 9. Loss of Funeral 10. Loss of Estate 11. Spousal & Filial (Rs.2,28,807 x 17) = Rs.38,89,719 Rs.38,89,719/- Rs.18,000/- Rs.18,000/- Rs.48,000 x 2 = Rs.96,000/- 12. Total Compensation 13. Amount awarded 14. Amount to be enhanced Rs.40,21,719/- Rs.39,29,000/- Rs.92,719/- 15) In the light of above discussion, apart from the above compensation which has been assessed by the learned Tribunal, this Court awards further sum of Rs.92,719/- looking to the income tax return of the year 2021-22. Respondents No.3/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the amount of compensation as enhanced by this Court within a period of 60 days from the -6- date of receipt of a copy of this order. The rate of interest would be the same as awarded by the learned Tribunal i.e. @ 7.5% from the date of application till the date of its realization. The rest of the terms and conditions shall remain intact.
Decision
16) In view of the above, the appeal is partly allowed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Rekha