Mr. Pankaj Gupta, Advocate v. NARENDER YADAV ORS

Judgment

1. The appellants, who were the claimants before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal [(cid:147)the Tribunal(cid:148)], have preferred the present appeal against an award dated 09.04.2015, passed in MACT No. 250/2012, arising out of a fatal accident resulting in the death of Mr. Dushyant Kumar. They seek enhancement of the compensation granted to them by the impugned award, which was in the sum of Rs.12,52,779/- alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum. FACTS

2. The facts, as stated in the impugned award, are that on 19.09.2012 at about 10:00 PM, the deceased was riding a scooty alongwith one (cid:150) Ms. Payal Srivastava, near Anand Vihar, when the scooty was struck by a Heavy Goods Vehicle [(cid:147)HGV(cid:148)] container bearing registration No. HR- 38J-6095. The occupants of the scooty were dragged for some distance, sustaining crush injuries. They were taken to Dr. Hedgewar Hospital, Signature Not Verified Signed By:PARUL VASHIST Signing Date:17.12.2025 11:14:05 MAC.APP. 625/2015 where they were declared (cid:147)Brought Dead(cid:148).

FIR No. 259/12, under Sections 279/304A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, was registered at PS Anand Vihar against the driver of the HGV [respondent No.1 herein], and a chargesheet dated 08.12.2014 was subsequently filed.

4. Two separate claim petitions were filed before the Tribunal arising out of the same accident, being MACT No. 249/12 relating to the death of Ms. Payal Srivastava, and MACT No. 250/12 relating to the death of Mr. Dushyant Kumar. The present appeal is against the award passed in MACT No. 250/12. The claimants before the Tribunal, who are the appellants herein, are the parents and two younger brothers of the deceased, while the driver, owner and insurer of the offending HGV were impleaded as respondents before the Tribunal, and are arrayed as respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3 in the present appeal, respectively.

5. The Tribunal returned a finding in favour of the appellants, holding that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 1, and awarded compensation the sum of Rs.12,52,779/-, alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum, under following heads: S.No. Heads Amount

4. Loss of dependency Rs.11,17,779.00 Loss of Love and affection Rs. 1,00,000.00 Funeral Expenses Loss of Estate Total Rs. 25,000.00 Rs. 10,000.00 Rs. 12,52,779.00 Signature Not Verified Signed By:PARUL VASHIST Signing Date:17.12.2025 11:14:05 MAC.APP. 625/2015

4. I have heard Mr. Pankaj Gupta, learned counsel for the appellants, and Ms. Archana Gaur, learned counsel for respondent No.3 (cid:150) National Insurance Co. Ltd. [(cid:147)Insurance Company(cid:148)].

5. Mr. Gupta seeks enhancement of the award on the following grounds: a) While determining the income of the deceased, the Tribunal erred in taking the income for the assessment year 2012-13 from the Income Tax Returns [(cid:147)ITRs(cid:148)] as Rs.1,82,210/-, whereas the ITRs reflect gross income of Rs.2,21,211/-, which was subjected to deductions of Rs.39,000/-, which was wrongly excluded. b) The Tribunal failed to add 40% towards future prospects, to the income of the deceased. c) The Tribunal erroneously applied a multiplier of 13 based on the age of the mother of the deceased, whereas the appropriate multiplier, having regard to the age of the deceased, ought to have been 18. d) The Tribunal incorrectly deducted 50% from the deceased(cid:146)s income towards personal expenses, by treating the mother as the sole dependant, ignoring the evidence showing that the father and two brothers of the deceased were also dependent on him.

6. Per contra, Ms. Gaur supports the computation of loss of dependency in the impugned award, and further submits that the non- pecuniary heads of compensation require re-computation, in accordance with the principles laid down in the judgment of the Constitution Bench Signature Not Verified Signed By:PARUL VASHIST Signing Date:17.12.2025 11:14:05 MAC.APP. 625/2015 of the Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi1.

7. Each of the aforesaid aspects is dealt with below A. COMPUTATION OF ANNUAL INCOME

8. While computing the income of the deceased for the purpose of assessing loss of dependency, the Tribunal relied upon the ITRs for two preceding years, which were proved through the testimony of the mother of the deceased [PW-1]. In addition, officials from the Income Tax Department were summoned, and examined as PW-2 and PW-4 to substantiate the said returns. Since the accident occurred on 19.09.2012, the relevant ITRs pertained to the Assessment Years 2011-12 and 2012- 13, which were exhibited as PW-4/2 and PW-4/3, collectively.

9. The Tribunal computed the income of the deceased by taking the average income of the two relevant years as reflected in the ITRs, noting that the deceased was employed as a Cashier and Sales Executive with M/s Craft Motorcraft Sales Pvt. Ltd., Sahibabad, Ghaziabad, and was also earning income from business, as deposed by his mother and borne out from the ITRs. The ITR for the assessment year 2011-12 disclosed a total income of Rs.1,61,722/-, comprising Rs.1,29,050/- from salary and Rs.32,363/- from business. For the assessment year 2012-13, the income from salary was Rs.1,07,633/- and from business Rs.1,09,648/-. Further, upon addition of income from other sources of Rs.3,930/-, the gross total income was computed at Rs.2,21,211/-. After allowing deduction of Rs.39,000/- under Chapter VI-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [(cid:147)the Act(cid:148)], the total taxable income for the said year was assessed at Rs.1,82,210/-. 1 (2017) 16 SCC 680 [hereinafter, (cid:147)Pranay Sethi(cid:148)]. Signature Not Verified Signed By:PARUL VASHIST Signing Date:17.12.2025 11:14:05 MAC.APP. 625/2015

10. Having regard to the substantial increase in business income between the two assessment years, Mr. Gupta does not dispute that the income of both years ought to be taken into account, in accordance with the principles laid down by this Court in Rajbala v. Krishnan Kumar Sharma2, and more recently in Lalita Gupta v. Manoj Kumar Rana3. However, he contends that the Tribunal erred in considering the income for the assessment year 2012-13 as Rs.1,82,210/-, whereas the gross total income as per the ITR was Rs.2,21,211/-.

11. Alongwith the ITR for the assessment year 2012-13, filed on

10.07.2012, i.e., prior to the date of the accident, the deceased had also furnished a certificate from a Chartered Accountant computing his total income. The computation reflected income from salary, business, and other sources amounting to Rs.2,21,211/-. The deduction of Rs.39,000/- was on account of investments of Rs.15,000/- under Section 80C of the Act, and rent paid of Rs.24,000/- under Section 80GG of the said Act. The deceased was clearly entitled to these deductions, as they pertained to outgoings which were deductible under the Act. Mr. Gupta is, therefore, correct in submitting that the actual income of the deceased for the assessment year 2012-13 amounted to Rs.2,21,211/-.

12. In view of the foregoing, the annual income for the purpose of computing loss of dependency, based on the average of the two ITRs, namely, Rs.1,61,722/- and Rs.2,21,211/-, works out to Rs.1,91,466.50/-. Consequently, the Tribunal(cid:146)s award requires modification to reflect this corrected figure. 2 2023 SCC OnLine Del 4082. 3 2025 SCC OnLine Del 8881. Signature Not Verified Signed By:PARUL VASHIST Signing Date:17.12.2025 11:14:05 MAC.APP. 625/2015 B. FUTURE PROSPECTS

13. In accordance with the judgment in Pranay Sethi, future prospects are to be considered while computing the income of the deceased4. In the present case, the deceased, being partially salaried and partially self- employed, and aged 22 years at the time of the accident, it is agreed by learned counsel on both sides that future prospects should be applied at 40%. C.

14. LOSS OF DEPENDENCY The Tribunal has applied a 50% deduction for loss of dependency, reasoning that the deceased was a bachelor, and that half of his income would have been spent on personal living expenses, with his mother being the sole dependent. Regarding this aspect, the affidavit of evidence of the mother [appellant No. 1 herein] reads as follows: (cid:147)4. I say that my son left behind my self as his mother namely Smt. Bimla Devi, Aged 47 years, his father Sh. Raj Kumar, Aged 50 years, his unmarried brother Sandeep Kumar, Aged 17 years and Anup @Anshu, Aged 15 years who are the only LRs of the deceased. The petitioners were solely dependent upon the income of the deceased. Had the deceased not died in the said accident, she would have lived a long with the petitioners. The entire life of the petitioner has become dark and gloomy. The petitioners have suffered a great mental pain, shock and trauma. There is sadness in the family of the petitioners. The losses suffered by the petitioners are quite irreparable and no amount can compensate the losses suffered by the petitioners.(cid:148)5

15. In cross-examination by learned counsel for the driver and owner of the HGV, appellant No.1 deposed as follows: (cid:147)(cid:133).I have two other sons also both are unemployed and unmarried. My husband is unemployed and suffering from Asthama. I have not brought the document of Asthama (cid:133)(cid:133) It is wrong to suggest that my husband was not suffering from Asthama and he is hale and 4 Paragraph 59.3 and 59.4. 5 Emphasis supplied. Signature Not Verified Signed By:PARUL VASHIST Signing Date:17.12.2025 11:14:05 MAC.APP. 625/2015 hearty and able to take care financially of his family(cid:133)(cid:133).(cid:148)6

16. Further, during cross-examination by learned counsel for the Insurance Company, she stated: (cid:147)It is wrong to suggest that my both sons namely Sandeep Kumar and Anup were working(cid:133)(cid:148)

17. The question of deduction for personal expenses, in the case of an unmarried victim of a road accident, was considered by the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma v. DTC,7 wherein the Court observed as follows: (cid:147)31. Where the deceased was a bachelor and the claimants are the parents, the deduction follows a different principle. In regard to bachelors, normally, 50% is deducted as personal and living expenses, because it is assumed that a bachelor would tend to spend more on himself. Even otherwise, there is also the possibility of his getting married in a short time, in which event the contribution to the parent(s) and siblings is likely to be cut drastically. Further, subject to evidence to the contrary, the father is likely to have his own income and will not be considered as a dependant and the mother alone will be considered as a dependant. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, brothers and sisters will not be considered as dependants, because they will either be independent and earning, or married, or be dependent on the father.

32. Thus even if the deceased is survived by parents and siblings, only the mother would be considered to be a dependant, and 50% would be treated as the personal and living expenses of the bachelor and 50% as the contribution to the family. However, where the family of the bachelor is large and dependent on the income of the deceased, as in a case where he has a widowed mother and large number of younger non-earning sisters or brothers, his personal and living expenses may be restricted to one third and contribution to the family will be taken as two-third.(cid:148)8 This issue was subsequently clarified by a three-Judge Bench

18. in Reshma Kumari v. Madan Mohan9, wherein the Court held: (cid:147)41. The above does provide guidance for the appropriate deduction