Case: Savita Devi &amp; Others Vs. Hawa Singh &amp; Others

ts are legal heirs of one Satbir who while driving his Alto Car was hit by a trolla bearingon 5th July, 2011 and had died on the spot. Claim petition was filed by ther Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 praying for grant of compensation to the amount ofBefore the Tribunal evidence was led that deceased was working as a Branch Post Master in Post Office Nangli Godha Tehsil and District Rewari and had received salary ofom Post Office in the previous year. Evidence was also led that the deceased was also an LIC Agent having been granted licenceto carry on Insurance business. Incomes received from the Insurance business pertaining to the year11 were also brought on record. Head Clerk of LIC, Rewari also came to prove the income received by the deceased from the Insurance business. The Tribunal found that salary income received from the Post Office has to be treated as onlyce rest of the amount in the year was towards arrears. The Tribunal although noted that income received from Insurance business for the yearer deducting the income tax ofid by the deceased, the Tribunal by giving reasoning of its own calculated loss from the income from commission agent only tos, adding both the income total ofas arrived and after deducting 1/3rd as personal expenses, by taking the multiplier of 14 the Tribunal arrived at totalnd by addingss of consortium,st of estate, the Tribunal awarded. Aggrieved by the judgment of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal dated 27th November, 2012, FAOof 2013 was filed by theApart from challenging the amount of income arrived at by the Tribunal received from the Post Office, thealso challenged the calculation of loss from Insurance business as arrived at by the Tribunal.ts also contended that while arriving at annual income ofom Post Office the Tribunal erred in not adding income towards future prospects. Further, the amount ofly as calculated by the Tribunal from commission from LIC business was attacked. It shall be useful to reproduce the grounds 4 and 5 taken before the High Court by thewhich are to the followingThat the Ld. Tribunal has erred in considering income of deceased aser year only from commission being LIC agent. It is submitted here that deceased was also an agent of LIC with branch office at Rewari and as per form 16A,income of deceased from April, 2007 to March, 2008 waser annum,form 16A for the year5 form 16A shows his income for the yearform 16A for the yearse documents placed on file show that his income per year was on increasing side and after deducting income tax to the tune of, the actual income from LIC comes to, which was not considered by the Ld. Tribunal and hence the same be considered and the award be modified.That the Ld. Tribunal has failed to consider that if income from two heads is added altogether then total annual income of the deceased Satbir Singh comes to. BY applying 1/3rd cut towards personal living expenses, as per Saria Vermas case the actual loss to the5 per year. When this income is further multiplier by 15 (a multiplier as perof Motor Vehicle Act, 1988), the total amount of compensation to be awarded to the, in of consortium. However, the Ld. Tribunal has applied the multiplier of 14 only.The High Court decided the FAO vide its judgment and order dated 3rd December, 2014. The High Court noticed the income from Insurance business for the years10 and3.5 lakh to5 lakh. It came to the conclusion that the income so derived is paid as per terms of engagement to legal heirs, hence, there shall be no loss of income on that score. The grounds which were raised by thein the grounds of appeal pertaining to income received from Insurance business were not adverted to by the High Court and the claim from Insurance business was rejected by making the followingkeeping in view that the income so derived as per own stand of their witnesses ought to be paid even to legal heirs as per the policy of this engagement and thus cannot be taken as to loss of income on that score.It is relevant to note that the High Court while noticing the income as shown in income tax return for the year11 had come to the conclusion that the deceased was getting earnings between5 lakh to5 lakh per annum which is clear from the following observation made in the16A of the income tax proved by way ofto P6 reflects so from March, 2007 to March 2008. Similarly documentfor the yearr the yearthe yearshows that the deceased was getting earnings between3.5 lacs to5 lacs per annum.The High Court did not interfere with the total compensation awarded by the Tribunal. Even though with regard to the compensation on conventional heads, the High Court opined that the Tribunal has awarded only meager compensation, the observation has been made to the followingneeds to be accepted that the learned Tribunal has lost sight of the conventional heads under which claimants needs to be compensated and has given only meager compensation on that score."

Court's reasoning:
The High Court itself recorded a finding that income from Insurance business of the5 lakh to5 lakh. The Tribunal and the High Court noted that the income received from the policies already done by the deceased shall be received by the legal heirs. There cannot be any dispute as per the terms of the agreement of the engagement of LIC agent that certain amount of commission earned by him goes to his legal heirs. But the mere fact that certain amount of commission is to be received by the legal heirs after the death of the agent cannot be treated to be the basis to hold that no loss shall be suffered by the legal heirs due to the death of the agent. The income of thewas noted to be increasing year by year from5 lakh to5 lakh. Due to the death of the deceased it cannot be denied that recurring income from Insurance business which business agent was expected to continue shall be loss of earning and when inly before the death income received by the deceased wason which he paid income tax of, the Tribunal gave strange reasoning by computing loss of Insurance business only as. We do not subscribe the reasoning given by the Tribunal computing loss from Insurance business aser annum which is apparently incorrect in view of the figures of the income as noted above.Further, specific grounds raised before the High Court in grounds of appeal as noted above were not adverted to by the High Court and the High Court erred in observing that since the legal heirs were to receive commission due to the death of agent, there will be no loss which was wholly an erroneous view.In normal course we would have remanded the matter to the Tribunal or High Court to recalculate the loss of earnings from Insurance business and further to consider the ground of future prospects on the salary received by the deceased from the Post Office but it is just and proper that instead of prolonging the proceeding a quietus be given to the claim at this stage