IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
M.A. No. 43 of 2005
Smt. Barnali Mukherjee ... ... ... ... Appellant
Versus
The New India Assurance
Company Ltd. & Anr. ... ... ... ... Respondents
------
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. Y. EQBAL
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE JAYA ROY
------
For the Appellants: Mr. Indrajit Sinha
For the Res./Insurance Com: Mr. Manish Kumar
------
09/11.12.2008
This appeal has been filed by the claimants who are
the widow and minor son of the deceased for enhancement of
compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur in Compensation Case No. 79 of
2002. The Tribunal as against the claim of Rs. 11,72,000/- awarded a
sum of Rs. 2,05,968/-.
The factum of accident and the insurance of vehicle
has not been denied by the respondent. The deceased was aged
about 37 years. According to the claimant the deceased was a
partner in two business firms M/s. Marketeers and M/s. Trade
Link with two other partners and the yearly income of the firm was
Rs. 99,520/-. Besides that the deceased was also working as
consultant and from that consultancy business, he was earning Rs.
37,500/-. In the claim petition, the claimant has shown Rs. 8,293.33
paise as the monthly income of her husband, upon being a total of
Rs. 99,520/- as annual income. The Tribunal has discussed about
the earning of deceased and the Income Tax return in Paragraph 12
of the judgment which reads as under:-
“The claimant in her claim application, has
stated that on the alleged date of accident, the age of
her husband Saurav Mukherjee was 37 years and
the Claimant in her evidence also reiterated the
same fact, though no document showing the age of
the deceased has been brought on record by the
Claimant, but the doctor, who conducted autopsy
on the dead-body of the deceased, assessed his age as
37 years which would be evident from Ext.6, the P.
M. Report. On perusal of the record, I find that the
age of the deceased is not under challenge and as
such it can safely be held that the age of the deceased
Saurav Mukherjee was 37 years on the date of his
death. The Claimant has stated in the Claim
application that the deceased was a partner in two
-2-
business firm viz. M/s. Marketeers and M/s. Trade
Link with two other partners and the yearly income
of the said firm was 99,520/-, but besides that the
deceased was also working as consultant and from
the consultancy business, he was earning Rs.
37,500/-. In the Claim petition, the claimant has
shown Rs. 8,293.33 paise as the monthly income of
her husband, upon being a total of Rs. 99,520/- as
annual income and to substantiate this fact, the
claimant has filed the Income-tax return and
Income-tax challans which are Exts 1,2 and 3. From
perusal of Ext. 1, it appears that the deceased had
paid income-tax of a sum of Rs. 10070/-, but Ext. 1
does not show on which amount of income, the
aforesaid tax was paid. Ext. 2 which is an income-
tax return of the financial-year 2002-2003 clearly
shows that the said return was filed by the Claimant
Barnali Mukherjee and not be the deceased in the
month of August, 2002 and this clearly goes to
show that the annual income as shown in the said
return was different from tax shown as paid. In Ext.
1 and Ext. 2, the annual income of the deceased has
been shown as Rs. 99, 524.75 p. and a sum of Rs.
8,904/- was paid towards income-tax. Ext. 3 which
is also an income-tax return, shows the income of
the deceased from partnership firm as Rs. 19,705/-
and the income from consultancy business as Rs.
37,500/- and a sum of Rs. 36,200/- and Rs. 6,039/-
have been shown as salary received by the deceased
from the said two firms but even on this document,
there is no signature of the deceased, rather it was
created by the Claimant.”
On the basis of the aforesaid finding the Tribunal took
only Rs. 25,744/- as the annual income of the deceased and after
deducting 1/3rd from the total income it was multiplied by 12 and a
compensation of Rs. 2,05,968/- has been assessed.
Prima facie we are of the view that the Tribunal has
completely misdirected itself in assessing the compensation and
ignoring the documentary evidence with regard to the income of
the deceased. In our considered opinion the income of the
deceased can not and shall not be less than Rs. 5000/- per month i.e
Rs. 60,000/- per year. After deducting one third the annual
dependency comes to Rs. 40,000/-.Taking the multiplier of 14 the
net compensation comes to Rs. 5,60,000/-. Taking into
consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of
the view that a sum of Rs. 5,50,000/- shall be just and reasonable
compensation which will meet the ends of justice.
-3-
For the reasons aforesaid, the compensation amount
is enhanced to Rs. 5,50,000/-. The Insurance Company is
directed to hand over the cheque of the enhanced amount
minus the amount already paid to the claimant-widow, on
20th December, 2008 before the Lok Adalat scheduled to be
held in the High Court premises. The office of the High
Court Legal Services Committee is directed to issue notice to
the claimant for her appearance before the Lok Adalat so
that she may collect the cheque personally.
(M. Y. Eqbal, J)
(Jaya Roy, J)
Alankar/Umesh