- (1.) NATIONAL Insurance Company has filed this appeal aggrieved by award dated 12.07.2004 of learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No.7, Jaipur City, Jaipur. Learned Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.21,53,000/- to the claimants-respondents for death of Surendra Kumar, who died in a road accident took place on 03.03.2001.
(2.) SHRI Vizzy Agrawal, learned counsel for appellant argued that statutory provisions clearly indicate that compensation must be "just and reasonable" and it cannot be a bonanza; not a source of profit but same should not be a pittance. Learned Tribunal failed to consider evidence led by claimants in order to prove occupation as well as earning of deceased. Firm S.K. Motors, of which it is claimed that deceased was its sole proprietor, was virtually non-existent. It was said to be run from home. It was neither registered with Registrar nor did it have any RST/CST numbers. Even account books of said Firm were neither available nor produced on record. Claimants have not produced on record details pertaining to stock-in-trade, closing balance, commission earned etc. Claimants have produced three income-tax returns of deceased to prove his income, but last income-tax return had been submitted by his father exaggerating his income. It was father of deceased, who created a fictitious firm on papers in the name of his deceased son, so as to evade tax liability generated from his own business in name and style of Kamal Motors. Admittedly, deceased was studying at the time of his death, which shows that he was not earning or carrying out any business at relevant point of time. Learned Tribunal erred in enhancing income of deceased on the basis of future prospects. Learned Tribunal has illegally assessed monthly income of deceased at Rs.10,000/- and after adding 50% thereto on account of future prospects, made it Rs.15,000/-. Learned Tribunal, while assessing loss of dependency also failed to make suitable deduction under the heads of Income Tax. Father of dependent was in no way dependent upon deceased as he was having his own independent business, and mother and sister of deceased were dependent upon father of deceased and not on deceased himself. Learned counsel for appellant further contended that deceased was unmarried and survived by his parents and a major sister, which made it essential that multiplier be applied according to age of father of deceased. Compensation awarded by Tribunal is in excess of a just and reasonable compensation. Hence, it is prayed that appeal be allowed and compensation may be reduced suitably. On other hand, learned counsel for claimant-respondents supported the award and prays for dismissal of appeal. On hearing learned counsel for parties and perusing material on record, I find that deceased at relevant point of time was only 22 years of age. Claimants have not produced on record any documentary evidence relating to business transacted by alleged firm of deceased. It has come on record that deceased was studying at the time of his death and he was not in permanent employment, therefore, income shown in last Income-Tax return could not have been made basis to assess his income. Income shown in earlier returns was far less than Rs.10,000/-. Learned Tribunal has assessed monthly income of deceased at Rs.10,000/- and after adding 50% thereto on account of future prospects, made it Rs.15,000/- for the purpose of award of compensation. Learned Tribunal was not justified in relying on income-tax return of deceased filed for assessment year 2001-02, wherein income of deceased was declared to be Rs.96,400/-. Even on that income of Rs.96,400/-, monthly income of deceased could not be accepted at Rs.10,000/-. In case, the return in preceding year 2000-01 was filed on the assessment of income of Rs.61,200/-. At the maximum, therefore, income of deceased can be accepted at Rs.5000/-. Deceased was unmarried and it could not be said that had he survived and in any case he would have got married in near future, he would have continued to contribute 2/3rd of his income to his parents and major sister. In my view, learned Tribunal ought to have deducted one-half of income of deceased towards personal expenses considering that he was unmarried and therefore deduction of only 1/3rd for own expenses of deceased could not be justified as per settled proposition of law. In this regard, reference may have to judgment of the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another ? (2009) 6 SCC 121. On the basis of evidence available on record, claimants are not entitled to any compensation of future prospects. Deceased did not have any fixed salaried income from the government or statutory corporation and therefore, adding element of future prospects to his income could not be justified. Learned Tribunal did not consider balancing factors such as future uncertainty because of fluctuation in income from business, expenses incurred in running and maintaining business etc. Learned Tribunal has rightly applied the multiplier of 17. In the result, the income of deceased is determined at Rs.5000/- per month. After deducting one-half therefrom for his personal expenses, monthly loss of dependency would come to Rs.2500/-. On applying multiplier of 17, compensation for loss of dependency would come to Rs.5,10,000/- (2500x12x17). Award of compensation of Rs.1,13,000/- under non-pecuniary heads i.e. medical expenses, transportation, mental agony, loss of love and affection, loss of property and funeral expenses, as well as award of interest is maintained. Claimants are thus entitled to compensation of Rs.6,23,000/- instead of Rs.21,53,000/- awarded by learned Tribunal. Appeal accordingly stands partly allowed. This also disposes of stay application. ;