Uttarakhand High Court
Oriental Insurance Co. vs Smt Sangita Arya And Others on 22 July, 2016
Author: Servesh Kumar Gupta
Bench: Servesh Kumar Gupta
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Appeal from Order No. 117/2010
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. ........ Appellant
Versus
Smt. Sangita Arya & Others ....Respondents
22nd July, 2016
Hon'ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.
Mr. Prabhat Pande, Advocate, for the appellant/insurance company.
Mr. Rajendra Tamta, Advocate, for the claimants/respondents.
Having heard the rival contentions, it transpires that when the deceased Harish Singh Arya was in the checking/patrolling duty on 18.6.2007 along with his superior Passenger Tax Officer, District Champawat and they were stranded somewhere on Tanakpur-Khatima Road, then at that time, Harish Singh Arya went steps ahead to make the water and he was dashed by the offending vehicle bearing no. UP02-D-5208, which was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver. Mr. Arya became seriously injured and sometime later he succumbed to the injuries.
The accident as well as the insurance cover of the vehicle has not been disputed here.
Dependents of the deceased filed claim petition asking for compensation of Rs. 11,22,000/-, but the learned Tribunal has granted such compensation even more to the tune of Rs. 12,55,000/-, in all, along with six per cent per annum simple interest thereon.
Insurance company has come up in the appeal objecting to the quantum as granted to the claimants.
2It has been contended that the income-tax return of the deceased for the year 2002-03 was Rs. 54,000/-; for the year 2003-04, it was Rs. 52,405/- and for the year 2004-05, it was Rs. 51,500/-. However, no such return was filed for the financial year 2005-06 and after almost one year of death of the deceased, his dependents filed the return for the year 2006-07 and showed the enhanced income of Rs. 98,500/-.
The learned Tribunal has evaluated the compensation on the total income of rupees one lakh for the year 2006-07, which is apparently erroneous in itself.
Learned Counsel on behalf of the dependents has urged that no infirmity has been committed by the Tribunal while evaluating such compensation because the deceased Harish Singh Arya was the owner of two packaged vehicles, one bearing no. UP02-D-5111 and another bearing no. UA04-D-0111, which he had purchased on 27.3.2000 and 20.4.2006 and the same has been certified by the Passenger Tax Officer of the same Transport Department, Haldwani, District Nainital. This certificate is Paper No. 36Ga/6 on the lower court record. So, he had such income and the compensation, as awarded, was quite appropriate.
This Court feels that the Tribunal perhaps remained in oblivion to the relevant Government Rules, which contemplate that no Government Servant can be indulged in running a parallel business (of whatever nature) in his own name in addition to his own Government Service. This Class IV employee (deceased) of the Motor Transport Department purchased these two vehicles for the package tours in the area. This act in itself is sufficient to show the nature of atmosphere, which is pervading in such departments.
3From the first three income-tax returns, it is obvious that the deceased did not show the income earned by these package tours of taxies to the Income Tax Department, but revealed the income of his salary only and when he passed away, his dependants without discerning the implications of such disclosure presented the income- tax return for the year 2006-07 to the tune of Rs. 98,500/-, which was almost double than the last three income-tax returns filed by the deceased. Therefore, the income which might have been earned by the dependants out of these two cabs could not at all be taken into consideration for evaluating the compensation.
It is for yet another reason that even after the death of such owner of vehicles, the income of the dependents out of these vehicles would not have lost and they would have continued to earn the income from these vehicles even after the death of Mr. Arya.
In view of what has been stated above, I hold that only the average of first three income-tax returns would have been the base for evaluating the compensation. Such average income comes to Rs. 52,635/-. Looking to the status of the family, I would not like to deduct 1/4th towards the personal expenses, but it must have been 1/3rd and considering such standards, the total dependency come to Rs. 35,090/- and applying the multiplier of "16" thereon, the amount of compensation comes to Rs. 5,61,440/-.
Again considering the financial status of the family, I further reduce the amount from Rs. 20,000/- to Rs. 10,000/- towards the loss of consortium. The amount awarded for the loss of love and affection is also reduced from Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 5,000/-. However, the amount of 4 Rs. 5,000/-, awarded for the funeral expenses, is left intact.
This way the total compensation comes to Rs. 5,61,440 + 10,000 + 5000 + 5000 = 5,81,440/- (rupees five lakhs eighty one thousand four hundred and forty only).
Consequently, the appeal of the insurance company is hereby allowed. The quantum of compensation is reduced to the extent indicated above. Impugned award stands modified to this extent only. Compensation amount, as modified by this Court, shall be released in favour of the claimants as per their respective shares and without asking for any surety/security. Remaining amount along with the interest (if any) which it might have earned shall be returned to the insurance company. The sum of Rs. 25,000/-, deposited under the statutory provisions, shall be remitted by the Registry to the Tribunal concerned.
Let the lower court record be sent back.
(Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.) Prabodh