FAO No.725 of IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA SURILA KUNDU AND OTHERS Vs SOM NATH AND OTHERS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJ Present: Mr. Vipul Sharma, Advocate for Mr. R.C. Gupta, Advocate for HARKESH MANUJA, J. [1]. By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to an award dated 21.07.2010 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (hereinafter to be referred as “learned Tribunal”), whereby an amount of Rs.13,29,500/- was awarde with interest @ 7.5% per annum. Brief Facts [2]. Appellants/claimants petition before the learned Tribunal praying for grant of compensation to the tune of Rs.50,00,000/ on account of death of Jagdish Kumar in a motor vehicular accident which took place on 05.09.2007, while alleging rash and n No.1/driver. [3]. Learned Tribunal after appraisal of evidence led by the parties found that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of respondent of 2011 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No. Date of Reserve: Date of Decision: SURILA KUNDU AND OTHERS SOM NATH AND OTHERS HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJ Mr. Vipul Sharma, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. R.C. Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.3. **** HARKESH MANUJA, J. By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to an award dated 21.07.2010 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (hereinafter to be referred as “learned Tribunal”), whereby an amount of was awarded as compensation to with interest @ 7.5% per annum. Appellants/claimants being dependents of deceased petition before the learned Tribunal praying for grant of compensation to the tune of Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakhs only) along with interest @ 12% per annum on account of death of Jagdish Kumar in a motor vehicular accident which took place on 05.09.2007, while alleging rash and n Learned Tribunal after appraisal of evidence led by the parties found that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of respondent IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.725 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Reserve: 23.05.2025 Date of Decision: 28.05.2025 ......Appellant(s) ....Respondent(s) HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to an award dated 21.07.2010 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be referred as “learned Tribunal”), whereby an amount of ion to the appellants/claimants along being dependents of deceased filed claim petition before the learned Tribunal praying for grant of compensation to the tune ees Fifty Lakhs only) along with interest @ 12% per annum on account of death of Jagdish Kumar in a motor vehicular accident which took place on 05.09.2007, while alleging rash and negligent driving of respondent Learned Tribunal after appraisal of evidence led by the parties found that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of respondent 1 By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to an award dated Chandigarh (hereinafter to be referred as “learned Tribunal”), whereby an amount of claimants along filed claim petition before the learned Tribunal praying for grant of compensation to the tune ees Fifty Lakhs only) along with interest @ 12% per annum on account of death of Jagdish Kumar in a motor vehicular accident which took egligent driving of respondent Learned Tribunal after appraisal of evidence led by the parties found that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of respondent MOHMED ATIK 2025.05.29 13:03 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment FAO No.725 of No.1/driver and held compensation in the following m S.No 1. 2. 3. 4. [4]. Being aggrieved against the appeal has been preferred by the appellant compensation awarded Arguments [5]. Learned Tribunal erred t income and as such the compensation amount was liable to be enhanced. Lastly, he concluded the arguments heads being on the lower side [6]. Per contra, submitted that the claimants have already been awarded compensation in excess. He further argued that learned Tribunal failed to consider the fact that loan account was in the name of deceased and the deceased while considering the said loan being paid by him was wrongly done and as such the income assessed was required to be reduced. of 2011 (O&M) /driver and held respondents jointly and severally liable, thereby awarding compensation in the following manner: - S.No Heads of Claim Loss of dependency Loss of consortium Funeral expenses Loss of Estate Total Being aggrieved against the award dated 21.07.2010, the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal. earned counsel for the appellants/ o ignore the income tax return of the deceased while assessing his income and as such the compensation amount was liable to be enhanced. Lastly, he the arguments by submitting that compensation under conventional heads being on the lower side was also to be enhanced. Per contra, Learned counsel for respondent No.3 submitted that the claimants have already been awarded compensation in excess. He further argued that learned Tribunal failed to consider the fact that loan account was in the name of deceased and appellant No.2, thus, the assessment of income of the deceased while considering the said loan being paid by him was wrongly done such the income assessed was required to be reduced. jointly and severally liable, thereby awarding Heads of Claim Amount (in Rs) Rs.13,20,000/- Rs.5,000/- Rs.2,000/- Rs.2,500/- Rs.13,29,500/- award dated 21.07.2010, the present appeal has been preferred by the appellants/claimants for enhancement of the appellants/claimants argued that the learned o ignore the income tax return of the deceased while assessing his income and as such the compensation amount was liable to be enhanced. Lastly, he by submitting that compensation under conventional also to be enhanced. respondent No.3/Insurance Company submitted that the claimants have already been awarded compensation in excess. He further argued that learned Tribunal failed to consider the fact that loan account o.2, thus, the assessment of income of the deceased while considering the said loan being paid by him was wrongly done such the income assessed was required to be reduced. 2 jointly and severally liable, thereby awarding Amount (in Rs) award dated 21.07.2010, the present enhancement of claimants argued that the learned o ignore the income tax return of the deceased while assessing his income and as such the compensation amount was liable to be enhanced. Lastly, he by submitting that compensation under conventional ompany submitted that the claimants have already been awarded compensation in excess. He further argued that learned Tribunal failed to consider the fact that loan account o.2, thus, the assessment of income of the deceased while considering the said loan being paid by him was wrongly done MOHMED ATIK 2025.05.29 13:03 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment FAO No.725 of [7]. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book of the case. I do find force in the arguments advanced by learned Counsel for the appellants. Discussion Question of Income [8]. In the present case, on the basis of material available on record, learned Tribunal erred year 2007-2008 (Ex.P years the income of the deceased could not be taken as per Ex.P case of motor vehicular accident has to be decided because claimants cou deceased was earning Rs.5,01,202/ accident as established by Ex.P can be made to “Smt. Anjali & Ors. vs Lokendra Rathod & Ors.”, (Civil) 229, where considered for computing his income in motor accident compensation Relevant paragraph thereof is reproduced hereunder: “9. The Tribunal and the High Court both committed grave error while estimating the deceased's income by disregarding the Income Tax Return of the Deceased. The appellants had filed the In Return (2009 annual income to be Rs.1,18,261/ Court Tax Return is a statutory document on which of 2011 (O&M) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book of the case. I do find force in the arguments advanced by learned Counsel for Question of Income Assessed In the present case, on the basis of material available on record, learned Tribunal erred to discard the Income Tax Return of the deceased for the 2008 (Ex.P-3) while holding that in the absence of ITRs of preceding income of the deceased could not be taken as per Ex.P case of motor vehicular accident, strict rules of evidence would not apply rather it decided on preponderance of probabilities and the fact that merely because claimants could not produce ITR of previous years the factum that deceased was earning Rs.5,01,202/- per annum at the time of motor vehicular accident as established by Ex.P-3 could not be neglected. to the judgment passed by the H Smt. Anjali & Ors. vs Lokendra Rathod & Ors.”, where it has been held that deceased’s income tax returns can be considered for computing his income in motor accident compensation Relevant paragraph thereof is reproduced hereunder: “9. The Tribunal and the High Court both committed grave error while estimating the deceased's income by disregarding the Income Tax Return of the Deceased. The appellants had filed the In Return (2009- 2010) of the deceased, which reflects the deceased's annual income to be Rs.1,18,261/-, approx. Rs.9,855/ Court in Malarvizhi & Ors . (Supra) has reaffirmed that the Income Tax Return is a statutory document on which I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book of the case. I do find force in the arguments advanced by learned Counsel for In the present case, on the basis of material available on record, ard the Income Tax Return of the deceased for the holding that in the absence of ITRs of preceding income of the deceased could not be taken as per Ex.P-3. Present being a strict rules of evidence would not apply rather it on preponderance of probabilities and the fact that merely ld not produce ITR of previous years the factum that per annum at the time of motor vehicular 3 could not be neglected. In this regard, reference he Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Smt. Anjali & Ors. vs Lokendra Rathod & Ors.”, reported as 2023 (1) R.C.R held that deceased’s income tax returns can be considered for computing his income in motor accident compensation claim cases. Relevant paragraph thereof is reproduced hereunder: - “9. The Tribunal and the High Court both committed grave error while estimating the deceased's income by disregarding the Income Tax Return of the Deceased. The appellants had filed the Income Tax 2010) of the deceased, which reflects the deceased's , approx. Rs.9,855/- per month. This in Malarvizhi & Ors . (Supra) has reaffirmed that the Income Tax Return is a statutory document on which reliance be placed, 3 I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper- book of the case. I do find force in the arguments advanced by learned Counsel for In the present case, on the basis of material available on record, ard the Income Tax Return of the deceased for the holding that in the absence of ITRs of preceding 3. Present being a strict rules of evidence would not apply rather it on preponderance of probabilities and the fact that merely ld not produce ITR of previous years the factum that per annum at the time of motor vehicular eference on’ble Supreme Court in case of 2023 (1) R.C.R held that deceased’s income tax returns can be claim cases. “9. The Tribunal and the High Court both committed grave error while estimating the deceased's income by disregarding the Income come Tax 2010) of the deceased, which reflects the deceased's per month. This in Malarvizhi & Ors . (Supra) has reaffirmed that the Income reliance be placed, MOHMED ATIK 2025.05.29 13:03 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment FAO No.725 of where available, for computation of annual income. In Malarvizhi (Supra), this Hence, this be fixed at Rs.1,18,261/ mind the deceased's Income Tax Return for the year 2009 Therefore, in placing reliance that the income of deceased needs to be reassessed as Rs.5,01,202/ with no redetermination qua the age of the deceased. Question of Compensation under Conventional Heads [9]. In view of others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another (Civil) 77; National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Pranay Sethi & others”, (2017) 16 SCC 680 Satwinder Kaur" on deduction to be made towards family expenses while determining the compensation warrants no interference, however, the heads of “funeral expenses”, “loss of estate” and “consortium” is required to be reassessed. Appellants compensation under the head of funeral expenses and Rs.18,000/ estate by applying 10% increase under the conventional heads. Loss of consortium is to be awarded to the tune of Rs.48,000/ of 2011 (O&M) where available, for computation of annual income. In Malarvizhi (Supra), this Court has laid as under: "10. ...We are in agreement with the High Court that the determination must proceed on the basis of the income tax return, where available. The income tax return is a statutory document on which reliance may be placed to determine the annual income of the deceased." Hence, this Court is of the opinion that the deceased's annual income be fixed at Rs.1,18,261/-, approx. Rs.9,855/ mind the deceased's Income Tax Return for the year 2009 Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case in hand and after placing reliance upon Anjali’s case (supra), this Court in its humble opinion holds that the income of deceased needs to be reassessed as Rs.5,01,202/ with no redetermination qua the age of the deceased. Question of Compensation under Conventional Heads In view of judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Pranay Sethi & others”, (2017) 16 SCC 680 and "United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur", reported as (2021) 11 SCC 780 on deduction to be made towards family expenses while determining the compensation warrants no interference, however, the heads of “funeral expenses”, “loss of estate” and “consortium” is required to be Appellants/claimants are, thus held entitled to Rs.18,000/ compensation under the head of funeral expenses and Rs.18,000/ applying 10% increase under the conventional heads. Loss of consortium is to be awarded to the tune of Rs.48,000/- x 3 (Rs.1,44,000/ where available, for computation of annual income. In Malarvizhi has laid as under: "10. ...We are in agreement with the High Court that the determination must proceed on the basis of the income ailable. The income tax return is a statutory document on which reliance may be placed to determine the annual income of the deceased." is of the opinion that the deceased's annual income , approx. Rs.9,855/- per month keeping in mind the deceased's Income Tax Return for the year 2009-2010.” facts and circumstances of the case in hand and after case (supra), this Court in its humble opinion holds that the income of deceased needs to be reassessed as Rs.5,01,202/- per annum with no redetermination qua the age of the deceased. Question of Compensation under Conventional Heads judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another” reported as 2009(3) R.C.R. National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Pranay Sethi & others”, reported as Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur @ (2021) 11 SCC 780, the findings of learned Tribunal on deduction to be made towards family expenses while determining the compensation warrants no interference, however, the amount awarded under the heads of “funeral expenses”, “loss of estate” and “consortium” is required to be thus held entitled to Rs.18,000/- compensation under the head of funeral expenses and Rs.18,000/- towards loss of applying 10% increase under the conventional heads. Loss of consortium x 3 (Rs.1,44,000/-) as claimants being 4 where available, for computation of annual income. In Malarvizhi "10. ...We are in agreement with the High Court that the determination must proceed on the basis of the income ailable. The income tax return is a statutory document on which reliance may be placed to is of the opinion that the deceased's annual income month keeping in facts and circumstances of the case in hand and after case (supra), this Court in its humble opinion holds per annum and 2009(3) R.C.R. reported as Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur @ the findings of learned Tribunal on deduction to be made towards family expenses while determining the under the heads of “funeral expenses”, “loss of estate” and “consortium” is required to be as towards loss of applying 10% increase under the conventional heads. Loss of consortium being MOHMED ATIK 2025.05.29 13:03 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment FAO No.725 of wife and children of deceased are also entitled for spousal and parental consortium; but simultaneousl of love and affection. Conclusion [10]. In view of held entitled for the grant of compensation Sr.No. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. [11]. The view of the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in and others Vs. National Insurance Company Limited and other, of 2011 (O&M) wife and children of deceased are also entitled for spousal and parental consortium; but simultaneously, they would not be entitled for compensation on account of loss of love and affection. In view of the discussion made herein entitled for the grant of compensation in the following manner Sr.No. Nature Annual Income of deceased Add 10% of Future prospects (deceased being businessman and 53 years of age) Total Income (Rs. 5,01,202+ Rs. 50,120.2/-) (per annum) Deduction (1/3) Net Income after Deduction (per annum) Total Loss of dependency (after applying multiplier of 11 as per age of 53 years) Funeral Expenses Loss of Consortium (Rs.48000x3) (to respondents no.1 to 3/claimants) Loss of Estate Total Compensation Amount Awarded by the Tribunal Enhanced Amount The grant of interest @ 7.5% per annum is view of the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in and others Vs. National Insurance Company Limited and other, wife and children of deceased are also entitled for spousal and parental consortium; y, they would not be entitled for compensation on account of loss herein above, appellants/claimants in the following manner:- Amount in Rupees Annual Income of deceased Rs.5,01,202/ Add 10% of Future prospects (deceased being businessman and 53 Rs.50,120.2/ Total Income (Rs. 5,01,202+ Rs. Rs.5,51,322/ (rounded off) Rs.1,83,774/ Net Income after Deduction (per Rs.3,67,548/ Total Loss of dependency (after applying multiplier of 11 as per age of Rs.40,43,02 Rs.18,000/- (Rs.48000x3) (to respondents no.1 to 3/claimants) Rs.1,44,000/ Rs.18,000/- Rs.42,23,02 Amount Awarded by the Tribunal Rs.13,29,500/ Rs.28,93,52 per annum is not equitable and just view of the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Smt. Supe Dei and others Vs. National Insurance Company Limited and other, (2009) (4) SCC 5 wife and children of deceased are also entitled for spousal and parental consortium; y, they would not be entitled for compensation on account of loss /claimants are Amount in Rs.5,01,202/- Rs.50,120.2/- Rs.5,51,322/- (rounded off) Rs.1,83,774/- 8/- 028/- Rs.1,44,000/- 028/- Rs.13,29,500/- 528/- and just in Smt. Supe Dei (2009) (4) SCC MOHMED ATIK 2025.05.29 13:03 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment FAO No.725 of 513 approved in a subsequent judgment titled as Narayana Reddy and another, 2014 (1) RCR (Civil) 443 enhanced to 9% per annum on the amount of compensation awarded to appellants/claimants from the date of institution of claim petition till its realization. Needless to mention here that the amount of compensation already paid to the claimants shall be deducted from the enhanced compensation. [12]. In view of aforesaid modification, the present appeal stands disposed of. Pending miscellaneous application(s) if May 28, 2025 Atik Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable of 2011 (O&M) approved in a subsequent judgment titled as Narayana Reddy and another, 2014 (1) RCR (Civil) 443 enhanced to 9% per annum on the amount of compensation awarded to claimants from the date of institution of claim petition till its realization. less to mention here that the amount of compensation already paid to the shall be deducted from the enhanced compensation. In view of aforesaid modification, the present appeal stands disposed Pending miscellaneous application(s) if any, shall also stand disposed of. (HARKESH MANUJA) Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No approved in a subsequent judgment titled as Puttamma and others Vs. K.L. Narayana Reddy and another, 2014 (1) RCR (Civil) 443, thus, the interest is enhanced to 9% per annum on the amount of compensation awarded to claimants from the date of institution of claim petition till its realization. less to mention here that the amount of compensation already paid to the shall be deducted from the enhanced compensation. In view of aforesaid modification, the present appeal stands disposed any, shall also stand disposed of. (HARKESH MANUJA) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No 6 others Vs. K.L. the interest is enhanced to 9% per annum on the amount of compensation awarded to the claimants from the date of institution of claim petition till its realization. less to mention here that the amount of compensation already paid to the In view of aforesaid modification, the present appeal stands disposed MOHMED ATIK 2025.05.29 13:03 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment