UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. versus INDIRO DEVI & ORS. on 3 July 2018

[2018] 5 S.C.R. 169

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.

v.

INDIRO DEVI & ORS.

(Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 7104-7105 of 2016)

JULY 03, 2018

[S. A. BOBDE AND L. NAGESWARA RAO, JJ.]

Fatal accidents – Compensation – Claim of – Rash andnegligent driving by truck driver – Death of victim-employee of acompany – Tribunal passed the award relying on the salarycertificate issued by the employer of the deceased – Income taxrecord produced by claimant not taken into account since claimantsdid not lead any evidence to explain contradiction between the twofigures emerging from the evidence of the employer – In Revision,the High Court took into account the income of the deceased asfound in the income tax assessment – On appeal, held: Salarycertificate not to be the only basis to assess income of the deceasedfor arriving at a just and fair compensation to be paid to theclaimants for the loss of life – Income of the deceased as stated inthe Income Tax return not to be totally ignored – Thus, order passedby the High Court does not call for interference.

Dismissing the petitions, the Court

HELD: There is no doubt that if the salary certificate istaken into account the salary of the deceased should be taken asRs. 1,06,176/- since the gross salary was Rs.8848/-per month.That, however, does not mean that the income of the deceasedas stated in the Income Tax return should be totally ignored. It isnot possible to agree with the observation of the tribunal that itwas necessary for the claimants to “explain the said contradiction”between two figures of income. The claimants had led reliableevidence that the deceased had returned an income of Rs.2,42,606/- for the assessment year 2004-05. This piece of evidencehas not been discredited. Indeed, it was possible that the deceasedhad income from other sources also. There is nothing in the lawwhich requires the tribunal to assess the income of the deceasedonly on the basis of a salary certificate for arriving at a just and A

B

C

DE

F

G

H

Afair compensation to be paid to the claimants for the loss of life.In the circumstances, there is no reason to interfere with thejudgment of the High Court. [Paras 9, 10][172-D-G]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition(C) Nos. 7104-7105 of 2016.B

From the Judgment and Order dated 27.08.2015 of the High Courtof Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in C.R. No.408 of 2006 and C.A.No. F.A.O. No. 4086 of 2005.

A. K. Raina, Binay Kumar Das, Advs. for the petitioner.

CSatish Kumar, Adv. for the respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

S. A. BOBDE, J. 1. The deceased was 39 years old. He wasemployed with the Food Corporation of India (hereinafter referred to as‘FCI’). He met with an accident when the three-wheeler he wasDtravelling in collided with a rashly driven Canter truck and died. Theclaimants claimed compensation before the Motor Accident ClaimsTribunal (hereinafter referred to as “Tribunal”).

2. These petitions arise from the order dated 27.08.2015 passedin C.R. No. 408 of 2006 and the Civil Appeal FAO No. 4086 of 2005 byEthe High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. The InsuranceCompany is before us (hereinafter referred to as “the petitioner”) in theinstant petitions.

3. The Tribunal found that the accident occurred because of rashand negligent driving and held the owner of the truck, the insurer and theFdriver jointly and severally liable to pay the amount of compensationdetermined.

4. The Tribunal passed an award of a sum of Rs. 12,90,000/- infavour of the claimants recoverable @ 9% per annum from the date offiling of claim petition, till its realization from the respondents jointly andGseverally.

5. The issue in this case revolves around the income of thedeceased. On behalf of the accounts section of the employer of thedeceased, it was deposed that the deceased was getting Rs. 8848/- asgross monthly salary. The deponent proved the salary certificate. The H

amount of salary was not questioned. The Tribunal passed the awardon the basis that the salary he was receiving i.e. Rs. 8848/-.

A

6. The Tribunal did not take into account the fact that the IncomeTax Returns of the deceased showed an income of Rs. 2,42,606/- perannum for the assessment year 2004-05 and Rs. 2,17,130 for theassessment year 2003-04. The Tribunal held that the claimants had notled any evidence to explain the contradictions between the two figuresof income emerging from the evidence of the employer of the deceasedand the income tax record, and passed the award relying on the salarycertificate issued by the employer of the deceased.

B

7. In a revision carried to the High Court by the InsuranceCCompany and appeal by the claimants, the High Court took the incomeof the deceased as found in the income tax assessment and provided for50% increase as future prospect. The High Court applied the lowermultiplier of 15 instead of 16 and after making a deduction of 1/4[th] forthe personal expenses, increased the compensation to Rs. 44,03,980/-Dwith interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date ofpayment. The amount payable was tabulated as follows:- E

F

G

H

A

B

8. It was argued before us on behalf of the petitioner that theHigh Court has committed a gross error and perversity in taking intoaccount the income of the deceased as per the income tax returns.According to the petitioner, the income of the deceased was Rs. 8848per month, i.e. the amount according to the salary certificate of theCdeceased and the High Court ought to have relied upon the salarycertificate for the calculation of the compensation.

9. We have given our anxious consideration to this contention.There is no doubt that if the salary certificate is taken into account thesalary of the deceased should be taken as Rs. 1,06,176/- since the grossDsalary was Rs.8848 per month. That, however, in our view does notmean that the income of the deceased as stated in the Income Taxreturn should be totally ignored. It is not possible to agree with theobservation of the Tribunal that it was necessary for the claimants to“explain the said contradiction” between two figures of income. Theclaimants had led reliable evidence that the deceased had returned anEincome of Rs. 2,42,606/- for the assessment year 2004-05. This pieceof evidence has not been discredited. Indeed, it was possible that thedeceased had income from other sources also. There is nothing in thelaw which requires the Tribunal to assess the income of the deceasedonly on the basis of a salary certificate for arriving at a just and faircompensation to be paid to the claimants for the loss of life.F

10. In the circumstances, we see no reason to interfere with thejudgment of the High Court. The SLPs are accordingly dismissed.

Nidhi JainG

Petitions dismissed.

H