IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.850 of 1998 (O&M) Date of decision:18.01.2011 Kulwant Kaur and others ....Appellants versus Darshan Singh and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. S.K.Singla, Advocate, for the appellants. None for respondents 1 and 2. Mr.Ashwani Talwar, Advocate, for the Insurance Company- respondent No.3. ---- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No. 2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? No. 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? Yes. ---- K.Kannan, J.(Oral) 1. The appeal is for enhancement of compensation for death of the first claimant's husband, who was 42 years of age and was said to have income from three sources: (i) as an agent of LIC, (ii) as involved in a business of renting of tents, and (iii) income from agricultural land. In support of the claim for the income from all the three sources, PW4, who was the Manager of the LIC, had been examined to say that for the period pertaining to the year 1993-94, the deceased had paid during his life time Rs.43,619/- as the first instalment as commission and the second instalment of Rs.31,714 was paid to his wife. Evidence had been FAO No.850 of 1998 (O&M) - 2 - given in support of the claim for the actual payments made. As regards the claim that he was having income from agricultural land, jamabandi extract had been filed to show that he had about 3/3½ killas of land, but the income from agricultural land had not been shown even in the income tax returns for determination of gross income although the income from agricultural land itself was not liable to income tax. The learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the Tribunal was in error in not taking the loss of income even for the managerial skills employed by the deceased for realizing the income. The learned counsel for the insurer also points out that no income could be taken as established through this source since the income tax returns does not make a reference about the same. 2. I will not totally reject any claim for income from agricultural land especially when the documentary evidence had been tendered about the ownership of the land. If he was not returning the income from agricultural land in his income tax returns, probably it might give rise to other consequences, but I am not prepared to totally reject the same as unavailable to the estate. The income tax returns filed and produced before Court were for a period subsequent to his death and this again, in my view, is not a factor that could be taken against the claimant, for, what is found in the income tax returns got substantiated through the evidence of PW4, who had referred to the payment of commission to the extent of Rs.43,619.40 paise. The learned counsel for the claimant would explain the fact as to why the second instalment of Rs.31,714/- was not shown in the income tax returns as it had been paid FAO No.850 of 1998 (O&M) - 3 - subsequent to the death to the claimant herself and that it was indeed an income that had accrued to the estate for the service rendered by him during his life time. There is also evidence to the effect that he was one of the top performing income tax agents and he had done business over Rs.80 lakhs for the year 1993-94 and an increase of nearly about four times over the business which he had done in the previous year 1992-93 by selling policies to the tune of Rs.20,50,000/-. I would take the income as brought through the evidence of PW4 as the income as an agent for a year which I will estimate the same at Rs.75,000/-. I will take Rs.20,000/- as the income from the tents business and for loss of managerial skills and for agricultural loss, I will provide for another Rs.10,000/-. On the whole, out of Rs.1,05,000/-, I would provide for a tax deduction at about 10% and take the total annual income as Rs.94,500/-. I will make deduction of 1/4th for his personal expenses and take the loss of dependency at Rs.70,875/-. I will adopt a multiplier of 14 instead of 16 as taken by the Tribunal and find the loss of dependency at Rs.9,92,250/-. I will provide for Rs.5,000/- towards loss of consortium to the wife and Rs.2,500/- for each of the two minor children towards loss of love and affection. I will add another Rs.5,000/- towards loss to estate and Rs.2,500/- towards funeral expenses to find the amount payable at Rs.10,09,750/-. The amount in excess over what has been awarded by the Tribunal already shall attract interest at 6% from the date of petition till date of payment. 3. The accident has taken place in the year 1993 and the amount enhanced through this award shall become distributed amongst FAO No.850 of 1998 (O&M) - 4 - the claimants equally. The liability shall be in the same manner as determined by the Tribunal already. 4. The appeal is allowed to the above terms. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 18.01.2011 sanjeev