Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
FAO No.2518 of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
#*/ 2 #* #*/ 563 7 563 7 563 7 563 7 # # & ! 2$* #" $2$*0 *# (()) #&!"7# 2$*0 *##(* *'8 # 0*" 2 2 2 2 . .*/(# (()20)) !
+. 3* *#00& )& )?@2 #+. "* */ * (()) 80)&" )* ! */ /&)& !*/ ( & &* &)) & #)&C 'E.#@& "* *#$&0 )#00& *)& /*# #"& &* &
"( &* #+. )# 0& * #(#* 0/*# G
%1E %1E %1E %1E*/ */ */ */%; %; %; %;<<<<D H3@ D H3@ D H3@ D H3@ I(( I(( I(( I(()) )) )) )) I (* I (* I (* I (* %'% %'% %'% %'%%;%1 %;%1 %;%1 %;%1 0 0 0 0 ,,,,;%;%= ;%;%= ;%;%= ;%;%= * +& * +& * +& * +& ,,,,;%;%= ;%;%= ;%;%= ;%;%=
" &
" &
" &
" & &(#* * 0 &(#* * 0 &(#* * 0 &(#* * 0 )) )) )) )) *// )) *// )) *// )) *// )) * (()&0+) * (()&0+) * (()&0+) * (()&0+) 3 3 3 3 $*0 & *"( . !+ )& * # )&"#&+ )2 #&D/*#+#$& '2;12;;;8J # ! & & # A<1B(# )&C &* * 00* */ */ 00& 2*00 ##* ,;%;1 & (# (()& 0* /& # #&+ )2 &) ## &* G*/+#$& . 1 $& .2
" / * * */ MOHMED ATIK 2026.01.14 16:40 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this
order/judgment
FAO No.2518 of 2017
ARGUMENTS APPELLANTS/C 9': Lear award on the gr income of the de was a transporter Transport Compa which stood duly Ex. P-8.It was fur future prospects, was stated that th consonance with compensation alo
ARGUMENTS RESPONDENT 9,: # *"( . & *// & ! $&0) 0*"( &*
DISCUSSION 91: I hav books of the case for the appellants/ QUESTION OF 9=: In t was earning Rs.
017 (O&M)
NTS ON BEHALF OF LEARN NTS/CLAIMANTS.
Learned counsel for the appellants/ the ground that the learned Tribuna the deceased at ₹8,000 per month. It sporter running his own business un mpany, earning ₹25,000 per month, d duly proved by the Income Tax Retu as further argued that the Tribunal fa pects, though an enhancement of 50% that the compensation awarded under t with the settled principles of law. O on along with a higher rate of interest NTS ON BEHALF OF LE ENT No.3/INSURANCE COMPAN #0* #2)# 0* )#(# # #/ /0 " */ 00& &0)2 * $# +"& & +. )# #&+ )0 I have heard learned counsel for th e cases. I find force in the arguments llants/claimants N OF INCOME ASSESSED In the present case, the claimants/app .25,000/- per month though no o
EARNED COUNSEL FOR TH llants/claimants assailed the impugne ribunal grossly erred in assessing th th. It was contended that the decease ess under the name and style Shiva onth, and was an income-tax assesse x Returns placed on record as Ex. P-5 nal failed to grant any addition toward of 50% was warranted. Additionally, under the conventional heads was not aw. On these grounds, enhancement o terest per annum was sought.
LEARNED COUNSEL FO PANY & !#(* *'8 # *# $ !)&! 0 */ & /0 */ (# 02 )0))/*# *& #/# 0 for the parties and perused the pap ments advanced by the learned couns appellants asserted that the decease no oral or documentary evidence wa 2 THE pugned sing the eceased hivam ssessee, 5 to towards nally, it s not in ment of FOR # 0 / 2 e paper counsel eceased nce was MOHMED ATIK 2026.01.14 16:40 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this
order/judgment
FAO No.2518 of 2017 adduced to substa assessee and the s on record as Ex. P Vehicles Act are probabilities and applicable to cri consistently held income tax return income of the de Exhibit P-5 to Ex Exhibits Ex. P5 Ex. P6 Ex. P7 Ex. P8
Ther the considered op to the tune of Rs monthly income o 9<: The others vs. Delhi (Civil) 77, was p members was 2 to income. Relevant >'; 017 (O&M)
substantiate the said claim. However, d the said fact stood duly established b s Ex. P-5 to Ex. P-8. It is well settled ct are to be adjudicated on the t s and not on the strict standard of to criminal proceedings. Furthermor held that, in the absence of other returns, being statutory documents, c the deceased. In the present case, th to Ex.P-8 reflect annual income as fol Assessment Year Total Annu 2009-2010 Rs. 2,04,31 2010-2011 Rs.1,84,05 2012-2013 Rs. 2,13,55 2013-2014 Rs.1,98,11 Therefore, in view of the aforesaid m red opinion that the learnd Tribunal e of Rs.8,000/- and further deems it j come of the deceased as Rs.18,000/-.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the elhi Transport Corporation and an was pleased to hold that in case t as 2 to 3, 1/3rd needs to be deducted as levant para of the judgment is culled o >';* !& *"0 )&$& !K( &0)0 ) *
wever, the deceased was an income- ished by the Income Tax Returns place ettled that proceedings under the Moto the touchstone of preponderance o rd of proof beyond reasonable dou ermore, the Hon’ble Apex Court ha f other cogent documentary evidenc ents, can be relied upon to ascertain th ase, the income tax returns shown a as follows:- l Annual Income Monthly Incom (Approx.) 2,04,310/- Rs.17,026/- ,84,050/- Rs.15,337/- 2,13,550/- Rs.17,796/- ,98,110/- Rs.16,509/- said material on record, this Court is o unal erred in assessing monthly incom s it just and appropriate to assess
in the case of “Smt. Sarla Verma an d another,” reported as 2009(3) RC case the number of dependent fami cted as personal expenses from the tot ulled out as under:- 0 &* *+ " * #(#* * +&*/ & & &0 & #&) 3 -tax s placed e Motor ance of e doubt urt has vidence, rtain the own as Income is of income the a and ) RCR t family the total #* ) #&)*G MOHMED ATIK 2026.01.14 16:40 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this
order/judgment
FAO No.2518 of 2017 * D8' /* K0 QUESTION O HEADS 9E: Furth Smt. Sarla Verm and others” repor vs. Satinder Kaur conventional he Appellants/claima funeral head and assessed to the spouse, children a filial consortium. [9]. Now among the legal material availabl deceased) did no dependent upon th of the compensat while appellant no of the compensa 017 (O&M)
#9DLL=@,'=%:2 ! 0 &* $& !0* &#$# # */ $& # * #(#* ) )&$& !K( D8'#@ # "+# */ ( /* # D8, @ # "+#*/ * J/&/ D81 @ # " K0&K? N OF COMPENSATION UN Furthermore, in view of the judgme erma’s case (supra), “National Ins reported as (2017) 16 SCC 680 and Kaur”, reported as (2021) 11 SCC 7 al heads are also required t claimants are thus, held entitled for R d and Rs. 18,000/- towards loss o tune of Rs.2,40,000/- (Rs. 48,0 ldren and parents of deceased are also rtium. Now, the question arises how the c gal heirs. In this regard, it may be ailable on record it is evident that did not remarry and she along with upon the deceased. Accordingly, appel pensation amount. Appellant No. 2 an llant no. 4 and 5 (being parents of the d pensation amount. It may be clarifi
! #)(#0 &0& *((). #&C $#) +F 0&&* */ &* 0 "##&2 0 & */ 02* )+* J /"&). ""+# & % * '2 * */( /"&).""+#&, *
"+# */ ( /"&). ""+
UNDER CONVENTIONAL udgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court l Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Seth and “United India Insurance Co.Lt CC 780, compensation awarded und red to be assessed accordingl for Rs.18,000/- as compensation und loss of estate. Loss of consortium .
48,000 x 5) as the appellants, bein re also entitled for spousal, parental an the compensation is to be distribute ay be taken into account that from th nt that appellant no.1 (widow of th g with her minor children was sole , appellant No.1 is held entitled for 60% o. 2 and 3(children) are entitled to 20% f the deceased) are also entitled to 20% clarified here that the aforementione 4 #&C * # 2 0 &* &# 2 * J , *=2 "+# ourt in Sethi o.Ltd. d under rdingly. n under rtium is s, being ntal and tributed rom the of the s solely for 60% to 20% to 20% ntioned MOHMED ATIK 2026.01.14 16:40 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this
order/judgment
FAO No.2518 of 2017 ratio of 60:20:20 shall separately/in CONCLUSION 9;: In view of entitled for the gr S.No.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12. [11]. The view of the obser and others vs.
(2009) (4) SCC 5 others vs. K.L. Na interest is enhanc the claimants fro 017 (O&M)
:20:20 would be minus the consortium tely/individually be entitled for consor ION ew of the discussion made hereinabo the grant of compensation in the follow Nature Annual Income of the deceased Deduction (1/4th) Net Income (Rs. 2,16,000 – Rs. 5 Future Prospects (50%) Total Income (Rs.1,62,000 + Rs. 8 Loss of Income after applying m as deceased aged 38 years(2,43,0 Loss of Estate Funeral Expenses Loss of Consortium (48,000 x 5) Total Compensation Amount Awarded by the Tribun Enhanced Compensation The grant of interest @ 7.5% per an observations made by the Hon’ble S vs. National Insurance Company CC 513 approved in a subsequent ju L. Narayana Reddy and another, 20 nhanced to 9% per annum on the am ts from the date of institution of cla
sortium as all the appellants/ claiman consortium in their favour. inabove, the appellant/claimant is he following manner:- Amount (in Rs.) (Rs 18,000 x 12) Rs. 2,16,000 Rs. 54,000/- Rs. 54,000) Rs. 1,62,000 Rs. 81,000/- + Rs. 81,000) Rs. 2,43,000 lying multiplier of 15 2,43,000 x 15) Rs. 36,45,000 Rs. 18,000/- Rs. 18,000/- 0 x 5) Rs. 2,40,000/ Rs. 39,21,000 ribunal Rs. 13,05,000 Rs. 26,16,000 per annum is not equitable and just ’ble Supreme Court in “Smt. Supe D any Limited and other, reported a ent judgment titled as “Puttamma an r, 2014 (1) RCR (Civil) 443, thus, th he amount of compensation awarded of claim petition till its realization. I 5 laimants t is held 6,000/- - 2,000/- - 3,000/- 45,000/- - - 0,000/- 21,000/- 05,000/- 16,000/- just in pe Dei orted as a and thus, the arded to tion. In MOHMED ATIK 2026.01.14 16:40 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this
order/judgment
FAO No.2518 of 2017 case the said amo thereafter along w today. Needless t the claimant shall 9%: Acco
disposed of with Tribunal. 9': Pend of. #. #. #. #.,,,,2%;% 2%;% 2%;% 2%;%==== &G - - 017 (O&M)
id amount is not paid within three m long with 12% interest from the expir dless to mention here that the amount t shall be deducted from the enhanced Accordingly, the appeal filed at the i f with the aforesaid modification of Pending miscellaneous applications(s ==== #(G& !8#* 8* ##(*# +) 8*
ree months, the same shall be payab e expiry of period of three months fro mount of compensation already paid anced compensation. t the instance of appellants/claimants on of the award passed by the learne tions(s) if any, shall also stand dispose D 73 @ D 73 @ D 73 @ D 73 @ 6 payable hs from paid to mants is learned isposed MOHMED ATIK 2026.01.14 16:40 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this
order/judgment