9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (6) TMI 387X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h the Claimants/Appellants herein did not file an Appeal against the Award dated 22.12.2009 passed by the MACT before the High Court, we deem it appropriate to enhance the compensation by exercising our jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India in order to do complete justice between the parties - The Respondent Insurance Company is directed to pay the compensation awarded to the Appellants within a period of twelve weeks from the date of this judgment, after adjusting any amount which may have been paid. The amount payable to the Appellants shall carry Interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing the claim petition till the date of realization. Appeal disposed off. - CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2612 OF 2020 (Arising out of S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aughters, and the parents of the deceased. The Claimants submitted that the deceased owned two taxis from which he earned approximately ₹ 1,00,000 p.a. after deduction of all expenses. The road accident was proved by the oral testimony of the eyewitness Shri Govind Lal Arya (PW2), who was accompanying the deceased, and had lodged the F.I.R. With respect to payment of compensation, the Claimants submitted that the deceased owned two taxis, which generated an income of ₹ 1,00,000 p.a. The R.T.O., Motor Vehicles Department, Haldwani produced certificates of both the vehicles bearing No. UP-0-2D-5111 and UP-0-4D-0111 before the MACT, which showed that the vehicles were purchased by the deceased Harish Singh Arya, and were r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng taxis. There is no basis for finding that the deceased was a Government employee. We do not know as to on what basis the learned Single Judge has arrived at this factually incorrect conclusion, and made it the basis for awarding compensation. The High Court further held that the ITRs for the years 2002-03, 2003-04 and 2004-05 showed that the average income of the deceased for these three years was ₹ 52,635 p.a. The ITR for the year 2006-07 revealed an income of ₹ 98,500 p.a., which was almost double the income of the preceding three years. The High Court held that the ITR for the year 2006-07 could not be taken into consideration. The learned Single Judge further held that the income which may have been generated from the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... owhere been averred by the Claimants in any of their pleadings. The entire basis of the judgment is hence misconceived. On the basis of the aforesaid erroneous assumption, the High Court has erroneously observed that the deceased was running a parallel business by plying two taxis, and held that the income derived from the same could not be taken into consideration for assessing the compensation. These findings being based on a completely erroneous assumption, are liable to be set aside. Second, the High Court determined the income of the deceased by taking the average of the ITRs filed for the years 2002-03 at ₹ 54,000 p.a., 2003-04 at ₹ 52,405 p.a., and 2004-05 at ₹ 51,500 p.a. The learned Single Judge disregarded ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi Ors. (2017) 16 SCC 680 Accordingly, we award future prospects @40% of the income of the deceased. Given the fact that the deceased left behind five dependents, the deduction towards his personal expenses would be 1/4th as per the judgment of this Court in Sarla Verma Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation Anr. (2009) 6 SCC 121. The multiplier adopted by the MACT and the High Court at 16 is appropriate. With respect to payment of compensation under the conventional heads, we direct that same be awarded in consonance with the judgment in Pranay Sethi (supra). Accordingly, the compensation payable to the Claimants/Appellants herein is determined as : i) Income : ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
