Vijay Kumar Rastogi vs Uttar Pradesh State Roadways Transport Corporation

Cost of medicines,": Rs. 1,08,883.00",

Cost of future treatment,": Rs. 25,000.00",

Loss of Income,": Rs. 40,802.00",

Loss of future income,": Rs. 1,78,044.00",

Loss of income for 15 days,": Rs. 1,854.62",

Loss of enjoyment of life & Limb etc.,": Rs. 1,00,000.00",

Pain and Sufferings,": Rs. 50,000.00",

Compensation for attendant,": Rs. 20,000.00",

Special Diet,": Rs. 20,000.00",

Conveyance,": Rs. 15,000.00",

Total,": Rs. 5,59,583.62",

or say,": Rs.

5,59,584.00""",

,,

Income From Salary

Gross receipt from salary as per

Salary certificate","66,766.50",

Less: Standard deduction u/s16(i),"22,225.50","44,511.00

Income from Business or Profession

Income as per Income and

Expenditure Account

Less: Income not covered under the said head","99,805.00",

Income from Salaries

Income from other sources

(17,518.00)","66,766.50

50,556.50",

Income from other sources

Bank Interest

Commission

Gross Total income","72.00

50,454.00","50,556.50

77,549.50

Less: Exemption U/S 80L

Bank interest

Gross Total income

Income Rounded off

Income Tax Due on Rs. 77480/-

Less: Deduction U/s 88

EPF contribution

LIP Paid",,"72.00

77,477.50

77,480.00

4,496.00

6,491.00

13,225.00

19,716.00

Amount allowed @ 20%

Tax Due

Tax Paid

Balance Payable/Receivable",,"3,943.00

553.00

553.00

NIL

conclusion of the Tribunal that the net annual income of the appellant was Rs. 44,511/-. It ought to have reckoned the taxable income for",,

computing the head towards loss of income. This, in our opinion, is the manifest error committed by the High Court. The appellant is justified in",,

relying upon the decisions of this Court which have taken the view that loss of taxable earning should be reckoned for the purpose of determining,,

just compensation as enunciated in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Indira Srivastava and Ors. 2008(1) R.C.R.(Civil) 359 : (2008) 2 SCC 763,",,

which has been followed in Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Jashuben and Ors. 2008(2) R.C.R.(Civil) 91 : 2008(2) Recent Apex,,

Judgments (R.A.J.) 62 : (2008) 4 SCC 162, and Kavita v. Deepak and Ors. 2012(4) R.C.R.(Civil) 273 : 2012(4) Recent Apex Judgments",,

(R.A.J.) 302 : (2012) 8 SCC 604 It has been held that the ""income"" should include those benefits, either in terms of money or otherwise, which",,

are taken into consideration for the purpose of payment of income tax or professional tax, although some elements thereof may or may not be",,

taxable due to the exemption conferred thereupon under the statute.,,

The computation of taxable income as disclosed by the appellant in his tax return for the assessment year 2004-2005 for the previous year,,

ended on 31st March, 2004, unambiguously reinforces the claim of the appellant that his annual taxable income was Rs. 77,480/- (rounded off)",,

and income tax due thereon was Rs. 4,496/-. After providing deduction of the income tax payable by the appellant, the amount towards the head",,

`loss of income'' of the appellant would be Rs. 72,984/- and not Rs. 44,511/- as assumed by the Tribunal.",,

In other words, compensation under the head `loss of income for 11 months'' would be ( Rs. 72,984 ? 12) x 11 = Rs. 66,902. Similarly,",,

towards the head `loss of future income'' computed by the Tribunal on the basis of disability suffered by the appellant to the extent of 25% in,,

relation to his lower limb and keeping in mind that the age of appellant was only 36 years on the date of the accident and the exposition in the case,,

of Sayed Sadiq v. Divisional Manager United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2014(1) R.C.R.(Civil) 765 : 2014(1) Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.)",,

420 : 2014 (4) SCC 735 (paragraphs 10 and 11), the appellant would be entitled to 40% of Rs. 72,984 i.e. Rs. 29,194 (rounded off) x 15",,

(multiplier), which comes to Rs. 4,37,910. Thus, the appellant would be entitled to receive enhanced compensation [ Rs. 66,902 - Rs. 40,802 =",,

Rs. 26,100 (Rupees twenty six thousand one hundred) and Rs. 4,37,910 - Rs. 1,78,044 = Rs. 2,59,866 (Rupees two lakh fifty nine thousand",,

eight hundred and sixty six)] under these two heads, instead of Rs. 40,802/- and Rs. 1,78,044/- awarded by the Tribunal. In other words, the",,

compensation amount towards these two heads would stand enhanced by Rs. 2,85,966/- (Rupees two lakh eighty five thousand nine hundred and",,

sixty six only) as indicated above, to which the appellant would be entitled along with interest at the rate of 9% (nine percent) per annum in terms",,

of our decision.,,

The appellant has also claimed further compensation towards damage to his Maruti Car which, according to the appellant, was completely",,

damaged, as mentioned in the Mechanical Inspection Report (Ext. PW-6/D) and the value of the car providing third party insurance (Ext.PW-",,

6/E). On a careful scrutiny of the judgment of the Tribunal, we find that the Tribunal has not analysed this claim at all. That grievance was made by",,

the appellant before the High Court, as noted in paragraph 9 of the impugned judgment claiming compensation of Rs. 80,000/- towards the same.",,

The High Court in paragraph 13 of the impugned judgment, however, rejected the claim on the finding that the appellant had failed to invite its",,

attention to any document indicating that the appellant had incurred the expenses of Rs. 80,000/- towards car repair. Even in the present appeals,",,

the appellant has failed to invite attention of this Court to any document on record in support of the said claim. Resultantly, we find no reason to",,

interfere with the opinion expressed by the High Court on the issue under consideration.,,

A priori, the appellant would succeed in getting additional amount of Rs. 2,85,966/- (Rupees two lakh eighty five thousand nine hundred and",,

sixty six only) as enhanced compensation towards `loss of income'' and `loss of future income'', along with interest at the rate of 9% (nine percent)",,

per annum thereon from the date of filing of the claim petition before the Tribunal till the date of realization.,,

The appeals are allowed to that limited extent in the above terms with no order as to costs.,,