F.A.O.NO. 5112 OF 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O.NO. 5112 OF 2008 Date of decision:29th November, 2010 Renu Bala and others .......Appellants Versus Ramesh Kumar and others ........Respondents BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: Mr. Virender Singh Punia, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. Vinod Chaudhari, Advocate, for the Insurance Company. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes/No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?Yes/No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No K.Kannan, J.(Oral) 1. The appeal for enhancement of compensation is at the instance of the claimants who were representatives of the deceased aged 36 years. He was involved in the business of hire and purchase of cars. He had been assessed to income tax. The claimants had filed income tax assessment and the SARAL form had been filed but it was rejected by the Tribunal on the ground that no one connected with the Income Tax Department had been examined. The original files have been brought to this Court and it is noticed that the copy of the SARAL form carries the seal of the Income Tax Department as well. It F.A.O.NO. 5112 OF 2008 2 is also attested to be a true copy and I do not find any reason to reject the same. The counsel appearing for the Insurance Company, however, would point out that Income Tax Return has been filed only for one year and the Court shall look to average income of the appellant for the period of three years prior to the death of the deceased. 2. Learned counsel also refers to the statement of the wife who stated that the deceased was not maintaining any account and she had no proof regarding the purchase of damaged car involved in the accident. She had also given evidence that she had no proof of payment of income tax during his life time. I can not take this evidence to exclude the documentary proof tendered through her. The Tribunal has reasoned that it is not uncommon that wives are illiterate and do not know the details of the husband's professional income except in a general way. The same way the statement of PW-2 Buta Singh was to the effect that he had no document in his hand to prove that he was partner and was involved in the business of sale and purchase. PW-1 has evidently secured the evidence of Buta Singh PW-2 that he is a partner but the documentary evidence Ex: P-7 shows that the assessment has been made in his individual capacity. I have unsubstantiated the testimony of PW-2 who was unable to prove that he was a partner. On the other hand, I am resting the assessment of compensation what is found through documentary evidence and I do not find the statement of PW-1 or Ex: P-7 has in any way to be diluted. F.A.O.NO. 5112 OF 2008 3 It is further contended that there is no evidence placed as to the status of the business after the death and unless there was a complete loss on account of the death, the entire income from the business ought not to be taken. The issue as to whether the entire business income must be treated as loss or not will have to to be considered in the light of the nature of business. If a business is not capital intensive and depends on the abilities of the particular person running the same, the death of such a person must be taken to result in complete loss of income. 3. In this case, the business was ultimately connected with the abilities of the deceased himself in the hire and purchase of vehicles and the death of a person ought to be taken in my view as resulting in complete loss of income for the members of the family. The Tribunal has taken the income at Rs. 3,000/- per month deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses and adopted a multiplier of 16 and I will re assess the compensation in the manner laid down by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another (2009) 6 SCC 121 and take the income as found in the Income Tax Return at Rs. 96,000/- per year and deduct Rs. 8,200/- for tax and take the net income of Rs. 87,800/-as the loss of income and provide for 1/4th deduction instead of 1/3rd Having regard to the fact that the deceased was supporting the family of his wife and two children. I retain the amount of compensation as determined at Rs. 5,000/- as loss of consortium and would add F.A.O.NO. 5112 OF 2008 4 another Rs. 5,000/- for loss of love and affection for each child, Rs. 2,500/- towards loss to estate and Rs. 2,000/- as funeral expenses will be retained as already determined by the Tribunal. The compensation that will become payable in the tabulated form is as under:- FATAL ACCIDENTS Age 36 years Occupation Business in hire and purchase of vehicles Claimants Widow, two minor children Heads of claim Tribunal High Court Sr. No. Amount(Rs) Amount(Rs) 1 Income 3000 p.m 96000 p.a 2 Add, % Increase 30% / 50% 96,000 – 8200 = 87800 3 Deduction ½, 1/3, ¼, 1//5 1/3rd 1/4th 4 Multiplicand 24000 65850 5 Multiplier 16 15 6 Loss of dependence 3,84,000 9,87,750 7 Medical expenses --- ----- 8 Loss of consortium, Loss of Love and Affection 5000 5000 + 5,000 9 Loss to estate 2500 2500 10 Funeral Expenses 2000 2000 Total 3,93,500 10,02,250 4. The amount in excess over what has already been awarded by the Tribunal shall attract interest at 6% from the date of the petition till the date of payment . 5. The accident has taken place in the year 2006. Since I have adopted a multiplier of 15. I will direct 1/3rd of share of the wife shall be paid in full to the widow and the remaining shall be retained in F.A.O.NO. 5112 OF 2008 5 deposit in a nationalised bank for a period of 10 years with the amount split up into 10 equal shares; the first share for a period of one year the second share of a period of two years and so on upto a period of ten years. As regards the share of the minor children the same will be retained during their respective ages of minority and paid to them after they attain majority. During the period of minority the interest accruals shall be collected quarterly and paid to the mother as a guardian for the minor children for their maintenance. The appeal is allowed to the above terms. [K.KANNAN] JUDGE 29th November, 2010 Shivani Kaushik