Case: Vijay Kumar Rastogi Vs. Uttar Pradesh State Roadways Transport Corporation

The present appeals take exception to the judgment of the High Court of Delhi in MAC Appeal No.393/2009 dated 6th December, 2016, whereby the High Court declined to enhance the compensation amount awarded to the appellant by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and to the order dated 18th January, 2017 dismissing the Review Petition No.20 of 2017.2. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short, "the Tribunal") vide order dated 4th April, 2009, awarded compensation to the appellant and histo the tune of Rs. 5,59,584/respectively, against which four appeals were filed before the High Court, one each by the appellant and hisand two cross appeals by the respondent, all of which were disposed of by the impugned judgment. The appellant alone has assailed the impugned judgment and prays for grant of enhanced compensation amount.3. As can be gleaned from the claim petition, the appellant and hissuffered serious injuries on 26th January, 2005, when their car was hit by bus no.9132, owned by the respondent and being rashly and negligently driven by one Alam Beg. The extent of the injuries caused to the appellant included haemorrhage, multiple cuts, bruises and fractures all over the body and post traumatic optic neuropathy. The appellant was treated at several hospitals and operated upon but suffered disability of 25%. He then filed a claim petition in the Tribunal, Karkardooma, Delhi, against the driver of bus no.Alam Beg, and the respondent on 27th January, 2006.4. Ultimately, the Tribunal, vide order dated 4th April, 2009, inter alia held that bus No.was rashly and negligently driven by the driver, Alam Beg, and accordingly, awarded the appellant with compensation of Rs. 5,59,584/along with interest at 7% p.a. under the followingKeeping in view all the relevant factors, principles of law laid down in above mentioned cases and evidence on record, I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled for compensation as per following details:1. Cost of medicines: Rs. 1,08,883.002. Cost of future treatment: Rs. 25,000.003. Loss of Income: Rs. 40,802.004. Loss of future income: Rs. 1,78,044.005. Loss of income for 15 days: Rs. 1,854.626. Loss of enjoyment of life & Limb etc.: Rs. 1,00,000.007. Pain and Sufferings: Rs. 50,000.008. Compensation for attendant: Rs. 20,000.009. Special Diet: Rs. 20,000.0010. Conveyance: Rs. 15,000.00Total: Rs. 5,59,583.62or say: Rs.. Aggrieved by the Tribunals award, the appellant filed an appeal before the High Court, alleging that while passing the award, the Tribunal had erroneously calculated his income as Rs. 44,511/per annum, disregarding his income from other sources and also reducing the actual income earned by the appellant by following the standard deduction method. In the impugned judgment, the High Court while recording that the appellants taxable income was Rs. 77,480/less tax paid of Rs.and while accepting that the accident had been caused by the rash driving of the bus driver, Alam Beg and that the appellant had in no way contributed to the causing of the accident, only enhanced the rate of interest on the compensation awarded from 7% to 9% as it felt that the rate of interest awarded was on the lower side but it did not enhance the compensation itself, on the ground that no case had been made out for enhancement. The appellant challenged the aforesaid judgment by way of a review petition, which was also dismissed.

Court's reasoning:
11. Strikingly, the High Court noted the taxable income disclosed in tax return of the appellant for the relevant period as Rs. 77,480/(rounded off) and tax deduction of Rs.yet proceeded to hold that the net income of the appellant has been rightly taken into consideration by the Tribunal. It is unfathomable that the High Court, despite having accepted the claim of the appellant founded on his tax return for the relevant period, disclosing the taxable income of the appellant as Rs. 77,480/(rounded off) and deduction of tax of Rs.could have affirmed the conclusion of the Tribunal that the net annual income of the appellant was Rs.It ought to have reckoned the taxable income for computing the head towards loss of income. This, in our opinion, is the manifest error committed by the High Court.The computation of taxable income as disclosed by the appellant in his tax return for the assessment yearfor the previous year ended on 31st March, 2004, unambiguously reinforces the claim of the appellant that his annual taxable income was Rs. 77,480/(rounded off) and income tax due thereon was Rs.After providing deduction of the income tax payable by the appellant, the amount towards the head `loss of income of the appellant would be Rs. 72,984/and not Rs. 44,511/as assumed by the Tribunal.13. In other words, compensation under the head `loss of income for 11 months would be ( Rs. 72,984 ÷ 12) x 11 = Rs. 66,902. Similarly, towards the head `loss of future income computed by the Tribunal on the basis of disability suffered by the appellant to the extent of 25% in relation to his lower limb and keeping in mind that the age of appellant was only 36 years on the date of the accident and the exposition in the case of Sayed Sadiq v. Divisional Manager United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2014(1) R.C.R.(Civil) 765 : 2014(1) Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.) 420 : 2014 (4) SCC 735 ( paragraphs 10 and 11), the appellant would be entitled to 40% of Rs. 72,984 i.e. Rs. 29,194 (rounded off) x 15 (multiplier), which comes to Rs. 4,37,910. Thus, the appellant would be entitled to receive enhanced compensation [ Rs. 66,902L40,802 = Rs. 26,100 (Rupees twenty six thousand one hundred) and Rs. 4,37,910 – Rs. 1,78,044 = Rs. 2,59,866 (Rupees two lakh fifty nine thousand eight hundred and sixty six)] under these two heads, instead of Rs. 40,802/and Rs. 1,78,044/awarded by the Tribunal. In other words, the compensation amount towards these two heads would stand enhanced by Rs. 2,85,966/(Rupees two lakh eighty five thousand nine hundred and sixty six only) as indicated above, to which the appellant would be entitled along with interest at the rate of 9% (nine percent) per annum in terms of our decision.14. The appellant has also claimed further compensation towards damage to his Maruti Car which, according to the appellant, was completely damaged, as mentioned in the Mechanical Inspection Report (Ext.and the value of the car providing third party insurance (Ext.On a careful scrutiny of the judgment of the Tribunal, we find that the Tribunal has not analysed this claim at all. That grievance was made by the appellant before the High Court, as noted in paragraph 9 of the impugned judgment claiming compensation of Rs. 80,000/towards the same. The High Court in paragraph 13 of the impugned judgment, however, rejected the claim on the finding that the appellant had failed to invite its attention to any document indicating that the appellant had incurred the expenses of Rs. 80,000/towards car repair. Even in the present appeals, the appellant has failed to invite attention of this Court to any document on record in support of the said claim. Resultantly, we find no reason to interfere with the opinion expressed by the High Court on the issue under consideration.