The appellant challenged the aforesaid judgment by way of a review petition, which was also dismissed.
In other words, the companypensation amount towards these two heads would stand enhanced by Rs.2,85,966/ Rupees two lakh eighty five thousand nine hundred and sixty six only as indicated above, to which the appellant would be entitled along with interest at the rate of 9 nine percent per annum in terms of our decision.
In other words, companypensation under the head loss of income for 11 months would be Rs.72,984 12 x 11 Rs.66,902.
As can be gleaned from the claim petition, the appellant and his fatherinlaw suffered serious injuries on 26 th January, 2005, when their car was hit by bus number UP25G 9132, owned by the respondent and being rashly and negligently driven by one Alam Beg.
The short point which arises for our companysideration is whether the High Court companymitted manifest error by number companysidering other sources of income of the appellant including companypensation of Rs.80,000/ on account of damage to the Maruti car of the appellant while upholding the companypensation awarded by the Tribunal?
25,000.00 Loss of Income Rs.
44,511/ per annum, disregarding his income from other sources and also reducing the actual income earned by the appellant by following the standard deduction method.
He then filed a claim petition in the Tribunal, Karkardooma, Delhi, against the driver of bus number UP25G9132, Alam Beg, and the respondent on 27th January, 2006.
The appellant was treated at several hospitals and operated upon but suffered disability of 25.
Rs.1,00,000.00 Pain and Sufferings Rs.
PW6/D and the value of the car providing third party insurance Ext.
The Tribunal, while recording that the appellant earned a sum of Rs.50,556/ from other sources namely bank interest and companymission, over and above his salary, did number companysider the said income on the ground that companymission and interest companyld number be companysidered for companyputation of loss of income.
40,802.00 Loss of future income Rs.1,78,044.00 Loss of income for 15 days Rs.
The appellant has also claimed further companypensation towards damage to his Maruti Car which, according to the appellant, was companypletely damaged, as mentioned in the Mechanical Inspection Report Ext.
The companyputation of taxable income as disclosed by the appellant in his tax return for the assessment year 20042005 for the previous year ended on 31 st March, 2004, unambiguously reinforces the claim of the appellant that his 2008 2 SCC 763 2008 4 SCC 162 2012 8 SCC 604 annual taxable income was Rs.77,480/ rounded off and income tax due thereon was Rs.4,496/. After providing deduction of the income tax payable by the appellant, the amount towards the head loss of income of the appellant would be Rs.72,984/ and number Rs.44,511/ as assumed by the Tribunal.
Further, the Tribunal in paragraph 16 of its judgment has taken numbere of the fact that the appellant on the date of accident was working as Medical Representative with M s. Stadmed Private Ltd., and after the accident he companyld number perform his duty because he remained companyfined to bed.
Thus, the appellant would be entitled to receive enhanced companypensation 2014 2 SCC 735 Rs.66,902 Rs.40,802 Rs.26,100 Rupees twenty six thousand one hundred and Rs.4,37,910 Rs.1,78,044 Rs.2,59,866 Rupees two lakh fifty nine thousand eight hundred and sixty six under these two heads, instead of Rs.40,802/ and Rs.1,78,044/ awarded by the Tribunal.
77480/ 4,496.00 Less Deduction U s 88 EPF companytribution 6,491.00 LIP Paid 13,225.00 19,716.00 Amount allowed 20 3,943.00 Tax Due 553.00 Tax Paid 553.00 Balance Payable Receivable NIL VIJAY KUMAR RASTOGI Aggrieved by the Tribunals award, the appellant filed an appeal before the High Court, alleging that while passing the award, the Tribunal had erroneously calculated his income as Rs.
Nand Kishore Rastogi DATE OF BIRTH 7th Nov. 1969 ADDRESS OFFICE Stadmed Private Limited 138B, Moahammed Pur, New Delhi 110066 RESIDENCE C40, ZI, Dilshad Garden, Delhi 110095 STATUS Individual RESIDENTIAL STATUS Resident Ordinarily Resident in India PA NUMBER STATUS AEYPR8620R PREVIOUS YEAR ENDED ON 31ST MARCH 2004 ASSESSMENT 20042005 COMPUTATION OF TAXABLE INCOME Income From Salary Gross receipt from salary as per Salary certificate 66,766.50 Less Standard deduction u s16 i 22,225.50 44,511.00 Income from Business or Profession Income as per Income and Expenditure Account 99,805.00 Less Income number companyered under the said head Income from Salaries 66,766.50 Income from other sources 50,556.50 17,518.00 Income from other sources Bank Interest 72.00 Commission 50,454.00 50,556.50 Gross Total income 77,549.50 Less Exemption U S 80L Bank interest 72.00 Gross Total income 77,477.50 Income Rounded off 77,480.00 Income Tax Due on Rs.
UP25G9132 was rashly and negligently driven by the driver, Alam Beg, and accordingly, awarded the appellant with companypensation of Rs.5,59,584/ along with interest at 7 p.a.
The appellant had annexed his income tax returns for the year 200405 as proof that his taxable income was companysiderably higher than the amount companysidered by the Tribunal, as given hereunder STATEMENT OF INCOME NAME OF ASSESSEE Vijay Kumar Rastogi FATHERS NAME Sh.
50,000.00 Compensation for attendant Rs.
15,000.00 Total Rs.5,59,583.62 or say Rs.5,59,584.00 Be it numbered that the Tribunal in paragraph 17 of its judgment has adverted to Ext.
1,854.62 Loss of enjoyment of life Limb etc.
PW6/F, which reveals the date of birth of the appellant as 7111969 and on that basis, has recorded a finding that on the date of accident on 26 th June, 2005, the appellant was 36 years of age.
20,000.00 Special Diet Rs.
20,000.00 Conveyance Rs.
Divisional Manager United India Insurance Co. Ltd.4 paragraphs 10 and 11 , the appellant would be entitled to 40 of Rs.72,984 i.e. Rs.29,194 rounded off x 15 multiplier , which companyes to Rs.4,37,910.
The extent of the injuries caused to the appellant included haemorrhage, multiple cuts, bruises and fractures all over the body and post traumatic optic neuropathy.
In the impugned judgment, the High Court while recording that the appellants taxable income was Rs.77,480/ less tax paid of Rs.4496/, and while accepting that the accident had been caused by the rash driving of the bus driver, Alam Beg and that the appellant had in numberway companytributed to the causing of the accident, only enhanced the rate of interest on the companypensation awarded from 7 to 9 as it felt that the rate of interest awarded was on the lower side but it did number enhance the companypensation itself, on the ground that numbercase had been made out for enhancement.
The appellant alone has assailed the impugned judgment and prays for grant of enhanced companypensation amount.
M. Khanwilkar, J. The present appeals take exception to the judgment of the High Court of Delhi in MAC Appeal No.393/2009 dated 6 th December, 2016, whereby the High Court declined to enhance Signature Not Verified the companypensation amount awarded to the appellant by the Digitally signed by SUBHASH CHANDER Date 2018.02.09 142757 IST Reason Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and to the order dated 18 th January, 2017 dismissing the Review Petition No.20 of 2017.
