Shakuntla Devi and ors. Vs. Tilak Raj Monkotia and ors. - Court Judgment

Deepak Gupta, J.

1. This judgment shall dispose of the present appeal for enhancement as well as an application under Order 41 Rule 27, CPC filed by the claimants for leading additional evidence to place on record and prove the income tax returns filed by the deceased.

2. The brief facts necessary for decision of the case are that deceased Jagdish Singh died in a motor vehicle accident involving Maruti Van No. HP-01-1396, which took place on 29.5.2000. The deceased was aged about 45 years. Claimants who are his widow and minor children filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the owner-cum-driver. It was further alleged that the vehicle was insured with the National Insurance Company. According to the claimants, the deceased was a Government Contractor having income of more than Rs. 40,000 per month and they prayed that compensation of Rs. 28 lacs may be awarded. The parents of the deceased were added as proforma-respondent Nos. 3 and 4.

3. The respondents contested the claim petition. The parties led evidence. The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 8,000 per month and the dependency of the family at Rs. 6,000 per month. After applying the multiplier of 10 and awarding Rs. 15,000 on another count, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs. 7,35,000. Aggrieved against this award, the claimants have filed the present appeal.

4. It would be pertinent to mention that before the Trial Court claimants proved on record the income tax return of the deceased which showed that his business profit i.e., net income for the assessment year 1999-2000 was Rs. 4,43,825 and on this income he had paid income tax of Rs. 10,750. In addition to filing the income tax return, the widow has also stated that the husband was earning more than Rs. 40,000 per month. There was also other evidence on record to show that huge contracts had been awarded to the deceased by the Public Works Department from time-to-time. The learned Tribunal discarded the income tax return on the ground that only one income tax return had been proved and without giving any reasons whatsoever, has assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 8,000 per month. This was in fact less than the amount of income tax, which was paid by the deceased. The reasoning of the learned Tribunal is totally erroneous and illogical. When evidence had been led before him to show that the last income of the deceased was Rs. 4,43,000 per annum and also there was evidence on record to show that the Public Works Department had awarded works worth more than Rs. 2 crores to the deceased from 1994-95 till his death in the year 2000. From the evidence of P.W. 5 to P.W. 8 who were the officials of the various departments of the Public Works, it stood proved that work worth more than 2 crores had been awarded to the deceased during the period of about 6 years. Therefore, there was no justification in discarding the income tax return of the deceased.

5. During the pendency of the present appeal, the petitioners/appellants filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27, CPC to lead additional evidence and have filed the original acknowledgements of the income tax returns for the assessment years 1996-97, 1997-98 and 1998-99 i.e., three preceding years. These documents are per se admissible in evidence. These documents could not have been prepared by the claimants at a later stage and their authenticity is not in doubt. It is necessary for this Court to take these documents on record since these returns are essential to arrive at a proper and just conclusion with regard to the amount of compensation to which the claimants are entitled. Therefore, CMP No. 1008 of 2004 is allowed. The three returns are taken on record and are exhibited as Exts. PA, PB and PC. Ex. PA shows that in the years 1996-97, the net income of the deceased from his profession of contractor was Rs. 2,03,166 and he had paid income tax of Rs. 78,312. For the next year i.e., 1997-98, his income was Rs. 2,23,200 and he paid income tax of Rs. 62,280. In the year 1998-99 his income was shown as Rs. 3,50,900 and income tax of Rs. 80,270 has been paid. As already pointed out above, the income depicted in the return filed before the Trial Court was Rs. 4,43,825 and income tax of Rs. 1,07,150 has been paid.

6. From the aforesaid returns it is clear that the income of the deceased was steadily rising. It is no doubt a hard fact that the income of a contractor is not very steady and there can be times when the contractor may not do well and income may fluctuate and come down. On the other hand, the income could have also risen over the next few years. Taking into consideration all these aspects, it would not be unreasonable to assess the income of the deceased at more than Rs. 30,000 per month or Rs. 3,60,000 per annum. Keeping in view the high income bracket, necessary deduction of income tax will have to be made. From the annual income of about Rs. 3,60,000, a sum of Rs. 90,000 can be deducted on account of income tax leaving a net income of Rs. 2,70,000, Out of this, 1/3rd i.e., Rs. 90,000 can be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased and balance shall be the loss of dependency and loss to the estate. The balance works out to Rs. 1,80,000 per annum.

7. Now comes the question with regard to the application of appropriate multiplier. The deceased was aged 45 years. The Apex Court in number of judgments has laid down the law as to how a multiplier has to be selected and some of the latest judgments with regard to multiplier are T.N. State Corporation Ltd. v. Rajaprfya and Ors. : AIR2005SC2985 and Managing Director, TNSTC Ltd. v. K.I. Bindu and Ors. : AIR2005SC4425 . In the present case, it has come on record that the deceased was aged 45 years, his widow was only about 40 years at the time of his death and the deceased left behind four minor children as well as his mother. Keeping in view the guidelines laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid judgments and also taking a cue from Schedule-H of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, I feel that a multiplier of 12 would be just and appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the present case. According to Schedule-II in case the deceased is aged between 40 to 45 years, the multiplier applicable is 15 and in case the deceased is aged between 45 to 50 years, the multiplier applicable is 13. Since the deceased in the present case was 45 years, the multiplier could either be 13 or 15. However, I have chosen a lesser multiplier of 12 since the deceased belonged to a very high-income group and the claimants may not be dependent upon him for a very long period. By applying the multiplier of 12, the compensation works out to Rs. 21,60,000.

8. In addition thereto the claimant-widow is held entitled to Rs. 10,000 on account of loss of consortium. The claimants are also held entitled to Rs. 10,000 for conventional damages and funeral expenses. The claimants in all are held entitled to Rs. 21,80,000 on account of compensation. The claimants shall also be entitled to interest @ 7-1/2% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition i.e., 16.11.2001 till deposit of the amount.

9. The total amount awarded is apportioned as follows:

1. Smt. Shakuntla Devi, widow Rs. 6,00,0002. Chander Mohan, son Rs. 2,50,0003. Monika, minor daughter Rs. 3,50,0004. Anamika, minor daughter Rs. 4,00,0005. Ankush, minor son Rs. 4,00,0006. Smt. Prem Devi, mother Rs. 1,80,000

10. In view of above discussion, the appeal is allowed and the award of the learned Tribunal is modified and the compensation is enhanced from Rs. 7,35,000 to Rs. 21,80.000 along with interest as aforesaid.

11. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced amount in the Registry of this Court within 12 weeks from today. No costs.