Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

He further submitted that the learned Tribunal erred in granting interest on compensation @ 8% per annum which should be scaled down in view of prevailing banking rate of interest.

In light of his aforesaid submissions, he prayed for modification of the impugned judgment and award of the learned Tribunal.

11. In reply to the contentions raised on behalf of the appellant-insurance company, Mr. Ashique Mondal, learned advocate for respondent no.1- claimant submitted that the learned Tribunal has erred in considering the income of the victim on the basis of income tax return for the Assessment Year 2016-2017 since the same pertains to the income of the victim after the accident. The learned Tribunal ought to have considered the income 1 (2013) 7 SCC 62 disclosed in the Assessment Year 2015-2016 which shows the income of the victim just prior to the accident. Further, it failed to consider the memorandum of understanding for retainership (Exhibit-21) where the victim was given retainership fee of US $ 2,000.00 from April, 2015 for six months by Principals M/s. Patriot Engineering Services, U.S.A. He further submitted that the victim, due to the injuries received in the said accident, sustained physical disablement of 85%. However, since due to the injuries sustained in the said accident, the right hand of the victim had to be amputated, hence, his functional disability should be considered at 100% leading to the loss of earnings at 100%. In support of his contention, he relied on the decision of this Court passed in National Insurance Co. Ltd. (CR)-I versus Sri Subhasis Manna & Anr.2 Moreover, he submitted that the victim since amputation of his right hand requires further treatment and quotation for above elbow prosthesis for the victim as been submitted by Endolite India Limited (Exhibit-24) be allowed along with future medical expenses bearing in mind the effect of amputation on the day to day functioning of the victim. To buttress his contention, he relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in Mohd. Sabeer alias Shabir Hussain versus Regional Manager, U.P. State Road Transport Corporation3.

He further submitted that the learned Tribunal granted a meagre sum of Rs. 30,000/- towards pain and agony which needs to be increased. 2 FMA 1544 of 2018 3 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1701 Moreover, he submitted that the victim is also entitled to future prospect of 10% of his annual income.

In light of his aforesaid submissions, he prayed for enhancement of compensation amount.

12. In reply to the contentions raised on behalf of the respondent no.1- claimant, Mr. Paul, learned advocate for appellant-insurance company submitted that the retainership has been terminated by the concerned company vide letter dated 5th May, 2015 (Exhibit-D) for unsatisfactory performance. So far as the claim of 100% functional disability is concerned, he submitted that the victim being a consultant continued with his job and is sufficiently performing his job in spite of amputation of his right limb, therefore, the extent of functional disability of 100% does not arise at all. Though the quotation of Endolite India Limited relating to prosthesis has been proved, but, precisely there is no evidence in support of future medical expenses.

15. With regard to the second issue pertaining to the determination of income of the victim, it is found that the learned Tribunal has determined the annual income of the victim at Rs. 1,51,614/- per annum on the basis of income tax return for the Assessment Year 2016-2017 since the road traffic accident has taken place on 24th April, 2015 which falls within Financial Year 2015-16 corresponding to Assessment Year 2016-17. Upon going through the income tax return acknowledgement for Assessment Year 2016-2017, it is seen that the income tax return has been filed on 4th August, 2016 which is much later after the date of occurrence on 24th April, 2015. From an income tax perspective, Financial Year is the year in which the assessee earns the income. Assessment Year is the following year in which the evaluation of previous year's income is made and the assessee pays taxes on it. For instance, if the Financial Year (2015-16) is from 1st April, 2015 to 31st March, 2016, then the assessment year for the money earned to the aforesaid period would begin after the Financial Year ends and would be Assessment Year 2016-2017. Since income for any particular Financial Year is evaluated and taxed in the Assessment Year, income tax return forms have Assessment Year (AY). As the income earned in a Financial Year cannot be taxed before it is earned so it is taxed in the following year. The accident having taken place on 24th April, 2015, maximum period of earnings during the Financial Year 2015-16 falls after the date of accident. Hence, it would not be appropriate to rely on the income of the victim disclosed in the Income Tax Return for Assessment Year 2016-2017. It is trite law the income of the victim assessed should pertain to the date of accident. In order to establish his income, the injured-victim has also produced his income tax return acknowledgement along with Form 16 issued by the employer under Section 203 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for Assessment Year 2015-2016. On perusal of income tax return acknowledgement for Assessment Year 2015-16, it is found that it has been filed on 28th August, 2015 which is also after the accident. Be that as it may, the Form 16 issued by the employer of the victim under the Income Tax Act for Assessment Year 2015-2016 shows income for the period 1st April, 2014 to 31st March, 2015 (Exhibit-1), which period is just prior to the accident and it discloses the total annual income of the victim for the aforementioned period, falling just prior to the accident, to be Rs.5,67,924/-and the tax deducted at source under Section 192 of the Income Tax Act to be Rs.48,200/-. Therefore, the total annual income of the victim would be the amount equivalent to total income less tax paid on the income (i.e. Rs.5,67,924/- - Rs.48,200/-) which comes to Rs.5,19,724/-. Mr. Mondal, learned advocate for respondent no.1-claimant argued that the victim, as per the memorandum of understanding (Exhibit-21), was given retainership fees of US $ 2,000/- for a period of six months commencing from April, 2015 by the Principals M/s. Patriot Engineering Services, U.S.A which should also be considered for determination of the income of the victim. Per contra, Mr. Paul, learned advocate for appellant-insurance company referring to letter dated 5th May, 2015 (Exhibit-D) submitted that such memorandum of understanding has been terminated by the said company and thus the retainership fees has got no bearing so far as determination of income of the victim is concerned. On perusal of letter dated 20th March, 2015 issued in respect of memorandum of understanding (Exhibit-21), it is found that the Principals M/s. Patriot Engineering Services, U.S.A, as per such memorandum, was supposed to pay directly a monthly retainership fees of US $ 2,000/- for a period of six months commencing from April, 2015 to the victim. However, by subsequent letter dated 5th May, 2015 (Exhibit-D), the victim was informed that the memorandum of understanding may be treated as void. Further though by dint of the letter dated 5th May, 2015 (Exhibit-D), the victim was informed that he would be provided with a lump sum amount of Rs.1 lakh against his activities from 1st April, 2015 to 23rd April, 2015 but the same has been granted after the accident. For the aforesaid reasons, the income claimed in respect of retainership fees cannot be taken into account.