Full Judgment Text
1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS.1101111012 OF 2017
Vijay Kumar Rastogi …. Appellant
Versus
Uttar Pradesh State Roadways
Transport Corporation ….Respondent
J U D G M E N T
A.M. Khanwilkar, J.
1. The present appeals take exception to the judgment of
th
the High Court of Delhi in MAC Appeal No.393/2009 dated 6
December, 2016, whereby the High Court declined to enhance
the compensation amount awarded to the appellant by the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
SUBHASH CHANDER
Date: 2018.02.09
14:27:57 IST
Reason:
th
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and to the order dated 18
January, 2017 dismissing the Review Petition No.20 of 2017.
2
2. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short, “the
th
Tribunal”) vide order dated 4 April, 2009, awarded
compensation to the appellant and his fatherinlaw to the
tune of Rs.5,59,584/ and Rs.4,53,131/, respectively, against
which four appeals were filed before the High Court, one each
by the appellant and his fatherinlaw and two cross appeals
by the respondent, all of which were disposed of by the
impugned judgment. The appellant alone has assailed the
impugned judgment and prays for grant of enhanced
compensation amount.
3. As can be gleaned from the claim petition, the appellant
th
and his fatherinlaw suffered serious injuries on 26
January, 2005, when their car was hit by bus no. UP25G
9132, owned by the respondent and being rashly and
negligently driven by one Alam Beg. 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. The appellant was treated at several
hospitals and operated upon but suffered disability of 25%. He
3
then filed a claim petition in the Tribunal, Karkardooma,
Delhi, against the driver of bus no. UP25G9132, Alam Beg,
th
and the respondent on 27 January, 2006.
th
4. Ultimately, the Tribunal, vide order dated 4 April, 2009,
inter alia held that bus No. UP25G9132 was rashly and
negligently driven by the driver, Alam Beg, and accordingly,
awarded the appellant with compensation of Rs.5,59,584/
along with interest at 7% p.a. under the following heads:
“23. Keeping in view all the relevant factors, principles of law
laid down in above mentioned cases and evidence on record, I
am of the view that the petitioner is entitled for compensation
as per following details:
1. Cost of medicines :Rs.1,08,883.00
2. Cost of future treatment :Rs. 25,000.00
3. Loss of Income :Rs. 40,802.00
4. Loss of future income :Rs.1,78,044.00
5. Loss of income for 15 days :Rs. 1,854.62
6. Loss of enjoyment of life & Limb etc. :Rs.1,00,000.00
7. Pain and Sufferings :Rs. 50,000.00
8. Compensation for attendant :Rs. 20,000.00
9. Special Diet :Rs. 20,000.00
10. Conveyance :Rs. 15,000.00
Total :Rs.5,59,583.62
or say :Rs.5,59,584.00”
4
5. Be it noted that the Tribunal in paragraph 17 of its
judgment has adverted to Ext. PW6/F, which reveals the date
of birth of the appellant as 7111969 and on that basis, has
th
recorded a finding that on the date of accident on 26 June,
2005, the appellant was 36 years of age. Further, the Tribunal
in paragraph 16 of its judgment has taken note 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 could not perform his duty because he remained
confined to bed.
6. The Tribunal, while recording that the appellant earned a
sum of Rs.50,556/ from ‘other sources’ namely bank interest
and commission, over and above his salary, did not consider
the said income on the ground that commission and interest
could not be considered for computation of loss of income. The
appellant had annexed his income tax returns for the year
200405 as proof that his taxable income was considerably
higher than the amount considered by the Tribunal, as given
hereunder:
5
“STATEMENT OF INCOME
NAME OF ASSESSEE Vijay Kumar Rastogi
FATHER’S NAME Sh. Nand Kishore Rastogi
th
DATE OF BIRTH 7 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
ST
PREVIOUS YEAR ENDED ON: 31 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 not covered 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
6
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. 77480/ 4,496.00
Less: Deduction U/s 88
EPF contribution 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)”
7. Aggrieved by the Tribunal’s 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. 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. In the
impugned judgment, the High Court while recording that the
appellant’s 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 no way contributed to the causing of
7
the accident, only enhanced the rate of interest on the
compensation awarded from 7% to 9% as it felt that the rate of
interest awarded was on the lower side but it did not enhance
the compensation itself, on the ground that no case had been
made out for enhancement. The appellant challenged the
aforesaid judgment by way of a review petition, which was also
dismissed.
8. The short point which arises for our consideration is:
whether the High Court committed manifest error by not
considering other sources of income of the appellant including
compensation of Rs.80,000/ on account of damage to the
Maruti car of the appellant while upholding the compensation
awarded by the Tribunal?
9. We have heard Ms. Rekha Rastogi, learned counsel for
the appellant as also Ms. Garima Prashad, learned counsel for
the respondent.
10. The principal issue that needs to be addressed in these
appeals is about the denial of claim in reference to commission
and interest amounts earned by the appellant during the
8
relevant period, as disclosed in the Income Tax Return filed by
the appellant. The appellant claimed income from other
sources under two heads, namely, Bank Interest : Rs.72/;
and Commission : Rs.50,454/. The Tribunal opined that
commission and interest cannot be considered for
computation of loss of income and confined the claim of the
appellant only on the basis of his net annual salary income to
Rs.44,511/. The Tribunal noted that the appellant did not file
any document of his age, educational qualification or
profession. The High Court, on the other hand, in paragraph
11 of the impugned judgment observed thus:
“ 11. Regarding the deduction of tax paid from the net
income of injured – Vijay Kumar Rastogi is concerned, I
find that the total income of injured – Vijay Kumar
Rastogi as per the tax return (Ex.PW6/F) is Rs.77477.50
and after deduction of tax of Rs.4,496/ the net income
has been rightly taken into consideration by the learned
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The disability of 25%
suffered by injured Vijay Kumar Rastogi has been rightly
taken to be the functional disability while keeping in
view that the injured – Vijay Kumar Rastogi was working
as the Medical Representative. No case for enhancement
of compensation while taking the gross income of injured
– Vijay Kumar Rastogi is made out, as net income has to
9
be taken into consideration while assessing the
compensation in such cases. Regarding the application of
multiplier of 15 is concerned, I do find that in case of
injured Vijay Kumar Rastogi multiplier of 15 ought to
have been adopted but by adoption of multiplier of 16,
the difference in the compensation worked out is
marginal and the same is set off by the fact that future
prospects of injured Vijay Kumar Rastogi has not been
taken into consideration and therefore, this Court is not
inclined to interfere with the awarded compensation on
this account. ”
11. Strikingly, the High Court noted the taxable income
disclosed in tax return of the appellant for the relevant period
as Rs.77,480/ (rounded off) and tax deduction of Rs.4,496/,
yet proceeded to hold that the net income of the appellant has
been rightly taken into consideration by the Tribunal. It is
unfathomable that the High Court, despite having accepted
the claim of the appellant founded on his tax return for the
relevant period, disclosing the taxable income of the appellant
as Rs.77,480/ (rounded off) and deduction of tax of
Rs.4,496/, could have affirmed the conclusion of the Tribunal
that the net annual income of the appellant was Rs.44,511/.
It ought to have reckoned the taxable income for computing
10
the head towards loss of income. This, in our opinion, is the
manifest error committed by the High Court. The appellant is
justified in relying upon the decisions of this Court which have
taken the view that loss of taxable earning should be reckoned
for the purpose of determining just compensation as
enunciated in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Indira
1
, which has been followed in
Srivastava and Ors. Oriental
2
Insurance Company Limited Vs. Jashuben and Ors. , and
3
Kavita Vs. Deepak and Ors. It has been held that the
“income” should include those benefits, either in terms of
money or otherwise, which are taken into consideration for the
purpose of payment of income tax or professional tax,
although some elements thereof may or may not be taxable
due to the exemption conferred thereupon under the statute.
12. The computation of taxable income as disclosed by the
appellant in his tax return for the assessment year 20042005
st
for the previous year ended on 31 March, 2004,
unambiguously reinforces the claim of the appellant that his
1
(2008) 2 SCC 763
2
(2008) 4 SCC 162
3
(2012) 8 SCC 604
11
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 not Rs.44,511/ as assumed by the
Tribunal.
13. In other words, compensation under the head ‘loss of
income for 11 months’ would be (Rs.72,984 ÷ 12) x 11 =
Rs.66,902. Similarly, towards the head ‘loss of future income’
computed by the Tribunal on the basis of disability suffered by
the appellant to the extent of 25% in relation to his lower limb
and keeping in mind that the age of appellant was only 36
years on the date of the accident and the exposition in the
case of
Sayed Sadiq Vs. Divisional Manager United India
4
Insurance Co. Ltd. (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 comes to Rs.4,37,910. Thus, the
appellant would be entitled to receive enhanced compensation
4
2014 (2) SCC 735
12
[Rs.66,902 Rs.40,802 = (Rupees twenty six
Rs.26,100
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. In
other words, the compensation 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.
14. The appellant has also claimed further compensation
towards damage to his Maruti Car which, according to the
appellant, was completely damaged, as mentioned in the
Mechanical Inspection Report (Ext. PW6/D) and the value of
the car providing third party insurance (Ext.PW6/E). On a
careful scrutiny of the judgment of the Tribunal, we find that
the Tribunal has not analysed this claim at all. That grievance
was made by the appellant before the High Court, as noted in
13
paragraph 9 of the impugned judgment claiming compensation
of Rs.80,000/ towards the same. The High Court in
paragraph 13 of the impugned judgment, however, rejected the
claim on the finding that the appellant had failed to invite its
attention to any document indicating that the appellant had
incurred the expenses of Rs.80,000/ towards car repair. Even
in the present appeals, the appellant has failed to invite
attention of this Court to any document on record in support
of the said claim. Resultantly, we find no reason to interfere
with the opinion expressed by the High Court on the issue
under consideration.
15. A priori, the appellant would succeed in getting
additional amount of Rs.2,85,966/ (Rupees two lakh eighty
five thousand nine hundred and sixty six only) as enhanced
compensation towards ‘loss of income’ and ‘loss of future
income’, along with interest at the rate of 9% (nine percent)
per annum thereon from the date of filing of the claim petition
before the Tribunal till the date of realization.
14
16. The appeals are allowed to that limited extent in the
above terms with no order as to costs.
.………………………….CJI.
(Dipak Misra)
…………………………..….J.
(A.M. Khanwilkar)
…………………………..….J.
(Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud)
New Delhi;
February 09, 2018.