AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Hasmukh D. Suthar, J
Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated 09.09.2020 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux), Bhuj, (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal" for short), in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.222/2003, the appellants –original claimants preferred present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short).
Heard Mr. Hemal Shah, learned Advocate for the appellants – original Claimants. Though served, none appears for the respondents.
It is the case of the claimants that on 24.06.2002, the deceased along with other persons were going to Gandhinagar in Maruti Car bearing No.GJ-12-P-1203 which was driving by Vinod Manilal Veghad on the left side of the road and when they reached near Nani Chirai village, at that time, one Truck bearing No.MH-04-AL-5393 came from opposite direction in rash and negligent manner and dashed with the Maruti car of the deceased. As a result, the deceased got serious injuries and succumbed to it. Therefore, the claim petition was filed by the legal heirs of the deceased to get compensation of Rs.70,00,000/- from the opponents. After appreciating the evidence produced on record, the learned Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.10,68,200/- along with cost and interest @ 9 % p.a.
The appeal is filed on limited ground of quantum and no further issue qua liability or contributory negligence is challenged. Therefore, learned counsel for the claimant has mainly argued that, the Tribunal has erred in considering average income of the deceased as Rs.82,270/- per annum though the income tax returns are filed and claimants having sufficient proof of income of the deceased, however, the Tribunal has discarded such documentary evidence and without assigning any reason, assessed his annual income as Rs.82,270/- based on last income tax returns. It is also submitted that the deceased was partner in one Hotel Payal at Anjar and was earning Rs.25,000/- per annum. He was also serving as a Manager in Shivam Traders and getting salary of Rs.1,17,000/- per annum and also doing agriculture work and brokerage work. Thereby, the deceased was having three sources of income and his overall yearly income was of Rs.1,50,000/-. Hence, he has prayed to allow the appeal as prayed for.
Having heard the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants and perusing the material placed on record, it appears that the appeal is filed only on the aspect of quantum and liability is not challenged. The Insurance Company has not filed any cross-objection. Hence, this appeal is required to be decided on the aspect of quantum only. Alleged incident is not not in dispute. Involvement of the vehicle is also not in dispute. In order to prove the claim, the claimant No.1 has filed an Affidavit at Exh:31, FIR at Exh:32, Panchnama of scene of incident at Exh:33, Inquest Panchanama at Exh:49, PM report at Exh:47, partnership deed of Hotel Payal at Exh:38, salary certificate issued by Shivam Traders at Exh:39 and Forms No.2D of Assessment years of 2000-2001, 2001-2002 and 2002-2003. After appreciating the evidence produced on record, the Tribunal held the offending vehicle sole negligent relying on the decisions of the Bimla Devi Vs. HRTC reported in AIR 2009 SC 2819 and Parmeshwari Devi Vs. Amir Chand, reported in 2011 (11) SCC 635. Further, without producing any congent evidence qua the age of the deceased, his years was considered as 42 years as per the claim petition and PM report which is at Exh:47 from which it reveals that the deceased was 42 years.
As per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Govind Yadav Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd., reported in 2012(1) TAC 1 (SC), that if no proof of income is produced on the record, then Tribunal has to consider prevalent minimum wages in absence of evidence of monthly income of the deceased. But in the present case, the accident occurred in the year 2002 and during that time, the deceased was doing service in Shivam Traders as a Manager, having partnership in Hotel Payal at Anjar and also doing agriculture work and land brokerage, so the deceased having three sources of income. The Tribunal considering the income tax returns and Form No.2-D for the year 2001-2002, total income comes to Rs.1,32,210/- p.a and after deduction of income tax Rs.16,442/-, total income comes to Rs.1,15,768/-. So average three years income comes to Rs.72,237/-and for the year 2001-2002, total agriculture income comes to Rs.13,050/-. So average agriculture income of said 3 years of deceased comes to Rs.10,033/- and after adding the said average agriculture income into total average, the actual average income including agriculture income of the deceased comes to Rs.82,270/-.
Further, the deceased was also earning income from agricultural activities, and while assessing the income of the deceased, the Tribunal was required to bear in mind the object of the Motor Vehicles Act, which is a beneficial and welfare legislation intended to provide just compensation based on the contemporaneous position of the individual and is essentially forward-looking in nature. In light of the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in S. Vishnu Ganga v. M/s. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., reported in 2025 INSC 123, K. Ramya v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., reported in 2022 SCC OnLine 1338, and Shivleela & Ors. v. The Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., reported in 2025 INSC 357.
So far income part is concerned, oral evidence tendered by the claimant No.1 is produced on record and as per say of claimant No.1, deceased was earning Rs.20,000/- p.m as deceased was also doing service as a Manager in Shivam Traders and further he was doing agriculture work and overall his average income should be considered as Rs.1,50,000/-. Partnership deed is produced at Exh:38 and income certificate at Exh:39. Village Form Nos.7/12 and 8A is produced on record. Perusing the aforesaid documents, the Tribunal has taken into consideration the average income for last three years i.e. Rs.10,033/- p.m but as per last return, for the year A.Y 2001-02 annual income of the deceased was Rs.1,32,210/- and deducting income tax, net amount would come to Rs.1,15,768/-. This Court is of considered view that there is no rule in all cases that Court has to consider average income. There is no any gradually increase in the income and there is no bar to consider the last return which is already inspired confidence and was filed prior to the accident. In this regard, reference may be made to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Malarvizhi & Ors. v. United India Insurance Company Limited & Anr. , reported in 2020 ACJ 526 (SC) , wherein it has been held that income-tax returns are statutory documents and the income of the deceased ought to be considered as per the ITRs. Once the Tribunal has accepted that increase in income is but natural, question does not arise to refuse the income as per the latest income tax return filed. In this regard, reference is required to be made to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Nidhi Bhargava v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. reported in 2025 SCC OnLine 872, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph 12 has observed and held as under :-
“12. Just because on the date of the accident i.e., 12.08.2008, the Return for the Assessment Year 2008-2009 had not been filed, cannot disadvantage the appellants, for the reason that the period for which the Return is to be submitted covers the period starting 1 st of April, 2007 and ending 31st March, 2008. Thus, for obvious reasons, the Return would be only for the period 01.04.2007 to 31.03.2008, and date of submission would be post-31.03.2008. No income earned beyond 31.03.2008 would reflect in the Income Tax Return for the Assessment Year 2008-2009. To reject the Return on the sole ground of its submission after the date of accident alone, in our considered view, cannot be legally sustained.
... In K Ramya v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1338, after taking note of, inter alia, Ningamma v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2009) 13 SCC 710, the Court held that the ‘…Motor Vehicles Act of 1988 is a beneficial and welfare legislation that seeks to provide compensation as per the contemporaneous position of an individual which is essentially forward-looking. Unlike tortious liability, which is chiefly concerned with making up for the past and reinstating a claimant to his original position, the compensation under the Act is concerned with providing stability and continuity in peoples’ lives in the future.”
Relying on the said decision, in the case of Sayar Ram vs. Ram Kara rendered in SLP (Civil) No. 24501/2025, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph 12 has observed and held as under:
“12. What flows from Nidhi Bhargava (supra) is that the Income Tax Returns filed after the accident/death can also be taken into consideration for calculation of income to award compensation. However, having due regard for the Tribunal's well-placed doubts, in so far as returns filed for the relevant year, we take a different approach . In the instant case, it cannot be simply assumed that there is no profit accruing from the business of the deceased at the time of the accident. To adopt such a presumption would be contrary to the settled principles guiding the assessment of compensation. Rather, the returns fo r the preceding year or years must be taken as a foundational benchmark, subject to careful judicial examination, recognizing that business profits are seldom static and often exhibit a progressive growth trajectory. The exercise thus calls for a fair and reasonable assessment, grounded in available evidence, of the financial benefits that the deceased would have justifiably earned but for the untimely accident. In our considered view, in order to award just and fair compensation, the annual income of the deceased is re-assessed at Rs.3,50,000/- per annum.”
Hence, in considered view of this Court, in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Malarvizhi & Ors vs. United India Insurance Company Limited & Anr. reported in 2020 ACJ SC 526, annual income of the deceased is required to be assessed at Rs.1,15,768/-. Upto that extent, the learned Tribunal has committed an error.
Hence, the income of the deceased is reassessed as Rs.1,15,768/- per annum. The deceased at the time of accident was 42 years and therefore, in view of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Shethi reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680,
30% i.e. Rs.34,730/- (30% of Rs.1,15,768/-) towards future prospect is required to be added and thus, the amount of future annual income of the deceased would come to Rs.1,50,498/- (Rs.1,15,768 + Rs.34,730). As the deceased was married and having three dependents, Rs.50,166/- (1/3) is required to be deducted towards personal expenses and therefore, yearly loss of dependency would come to Rs.1,00,332/- and as the deceased was admittedly aged around 42 years, as per the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt) & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. reported in (2009)6 SCC 121 and National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi reported in 2017 ACJ 2700, Tribunal has considered multiplier of 14, which in the considered opinion of this Court is just and proper and does not call for any interference. In view of above, the amount under the head of future loss of dependency is required to be reassessed as Rs.1,00,332/- x 16 = Rs.14,04,648/-.
Further, the Tribunal by relying on the judgment of Pranay Sethi (supra) has awarded total Rs.30,000/- under the two conventional heads, however, this Court is of the view that amount is required to be reassessed as Rs.18,150/- towards loss of estate and Rs.18,150/- towards funeral expenses. Therefore, the appellants – original claimants are entitled for additional amount of Rs.6300/- (i.e. Rs.18,150/- - Rs.15,000/- = Rs.3150/-towards loss of estate and Rs.18,150/- - Rs.15,000/- = Rs.3150/- towards funeral expenses).
Further, in view of ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Nanu Ram, reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130 and Janabai Wd/o Dinkarrao Ghorpade & Ors., Vs M/s ICICI Lambord Insurance Company Ltd., reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 666, the Tribunal has committed error in awarding Rs.40,000/- under the head of loss of consortium. Therefore, the amount towards loss of consortium is reassessed as Rs.96,800/- for 2 claimants).
As discussed above, the appellants – original claimants are entitled to get compensation computed as under:-
Heads
Awarded by the
Tribunal
Reassessed by
this Court
Future loss of dependency
9,98,214/-
14,04,648/-
Loss of Estate
15,000/-
18,150/-
Funeral expenses
15,000/-
18,150/-
Loss of consortium
40,000/-
96,800/-
Total compensation
1068214/-
15,37,748/-
As Rs.10,68,214/- is already awarded by learned Tribunal, the appellants – original claimant is entitled to get additional amount of Rs.4,69,534/- (Rs.15,37,748 – Rs.10,68,214/-) with proportionate costs and interest as awarded by the learned Tribunal.
Hence, present appeal is partly allowed. The judgment and award dated 09.09.2020 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux), Bhuj, in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.222/2003 stands modified to the aforesaid extent. Rest of the judgment and award remains unaltered. It is provided that respondent No.3 shall deposit such additional amount of Rs.4,69,534/- along with interest as awarded by the Tribunal, before the Tribunal within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Record and proceedings be remitted back to the concerned Tribunal forthwith.
The Tribunal is directed to recover or deduct the deficit court fees on enhanced amount and thereafter disburse the amount accordingly. Award to be drawn accordingly.