UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.versusINDIRO DEVI & ORS.

                        [2018] 5 S.C.R. 169                             169


             UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.                            A
                                 v.
                      INDIRO DEVI & ORS.
       (Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 7104-7105 of 2016)
                           JULY 03, 2018                                B
       [S. A. BOBDE AND L. NAGESWARA RAO, JJ.]
       Fatal accidents – Compensation – Claim of – Rash and
negligent driving by truck driver – Death of victim-employee of a
company – Tribunal passed the award relying on the salary
                                                                        C
certificate issued by the employer of the deceased – Income tax
record produced by claimant not taken into account since claimants
did not lead any evidence to explain contradiction between the two
figures emerging from the evidence of the employer – In Revision,
the High Court took into account the income of the deceased as
found in the income tax assessment – On appeal, held: Salary            D
certificate not to be the only basis to assess income of the deceased
for arriving at a just and fair compensation to be paid to the
claimants for the loss of life – Income of the deceased as stated in
the Income Tax return not to be totally ignored – Thus, order passed
by the High Court does not call for interference.
                                                                        E
      Dismissing the petitions, the Court
      HELD: There is no doubt that if the salary certificate is
taken into account the salary of the deceased should be taken as
Rs. 1,06,176/- since the gross salary was Rs.8848/-per month.
That, however, does not mean that the income of the deceased            F
as stated in the Income Tax return should be totally ignored. It is
not possible to agree with the observation of the tribunal that it
was necessary for the claimants to “explain the said contradiction”
between two figures of income. The claimants had led reliable
evidence that the deceased had returned an income of Rs.
2,42,606/- for the assessment year 2004-05. This piece of evidence      G
has not been discredited. Indeed, it was possible that the deceased
had income from other sources also. There is nothing in the law
which requires the tribunal to assess the income of the deceased
only on the basis of a salary certificate for arriving at a just and
                                                                        H
                                169
170             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                             [2018] 5 S.C.R.


A     fair compensation to be paid to the claimants for the loss of life.
      In the circumstances, there is no reason to interfere with the
      judgment 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 Court
      of 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.

C            Satish 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 was
      employed with the Food Corporation of India (hereinafter referred to as
      ‘FCI’). He met with an accident when the three-wheeler he was
D     travelling in collided with a rashly driven Canter truck and died. The
      claimants claimed compensation before the Motor Accident Claims
      Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as “Tribunal”).
             2. These petitions arise from the order dated 27.08.2015 passed
      in C.R. No. 408 of 2006 and the Civil Appeal FAO No. 4086 of 2005 by
E     the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. The Insurance
      Company is before us (hereinafter referred to as “the petitioner”) in the
      instant petitions.
             3. The Tribunal found that the accident occurred because of rash
      and negligent driving and held the owner of the truck, the insurer and the
F     driver jointly and severally liable to pay the amount of compensation
      determined.
              4. The Tribunal passed an award of a sum of Rs. 12,90,000/- in
      favour of the claimants recoverable @ 9% per annum from the date of
      filing of claim petition, till its realization from the respondents jointly and
G     severally.
            5. The issue in this case revolves around the income of the
      deceased. On behalf of the accounts section of the employer of the
      deceased, it was deposed that the deceased was getting Rs. 8848/- as
      gross monthly salary. The deponent proved the salary certificate. The
H
   UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. v. INDIRO DEVI                           171
                   [S. A. BOBDE, J.]

amount of salary was not questioned. The Tribunal passed the award          A
on the basis that the salary he was receiving i.e. Rs. 8848/-.
       6. The Tribunal did not take into account the fact that the Income
Tax Returns of the deceased showed an income of Rs. 2,42,606/- per
annum for the assessment year 2004-05 and Rs. 2,17,130 for the
assessment year 2003-04. The Tribunal held that the claimants had not       B
led any evidence to explain the contradictions between the two figures
of income emerging from the evidence of the employer of the deceased
and the income tax record, and passed the award relying on the salary
certificate issued by the employer of the deceased.
       7. In a revision carried to the High Court by the Insurance          C
Company and appeal by the claimants, the High Court took the income
of the deceased as found in the income tax assessment and provided for
50% increase as future prospect. The High Court applied the lower
multiplier of 15 instead of 16 and after making a deduction of 1/4th for
the personal expenses, increased the compensation to Rs. 44,03,980/-
with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of   D
payment. The amount payable was tabulated as follows:-



                                                                            E




                                                                            F




                                                                            G




                                                                            H
172                SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2018] 5 S.C.R.


A




B            8. It was argued before us on behalf of the petitioner that the
      High Court has committed a gross error and perversity in taking into
      account the income of the deceased as per the income tax returns.
      According to the petitioner, the income of the deceased was Rs. 8848
      per month, i.e. the amount according to the salary certificate of the
C     deceased and the High Court ought to have relied upon the salary
      certificate 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 the
      salary of the deceased should be taken as Rs. 1,06,176/- since the gross
D     salary was Rs.8848 per month. That, however, in our view does not
      mean that the income of the deceased as stated in the Income Tax
      return should be totally ignored. It is not possible to agree with the
      observation of the Tribunal that it was necessary for the claimants to
      “explain the said contradiction” between two figures of income. The
      claimants had led reliable evidence that the deceased had returned an
E     income of Rs. 2,42,606/- for the assessment year 2004-05. This piece
      of evidence has not been discredited. Indeed, it was possible that the
      deceased had income from other sources also. There is nothing in the
      law which requires the Tribunal to assess the income of the deceased
      only on the basis of a salary certificate for arriving at a just and fair
F     compensation to be paid to the claimants for the loss of life.
           10. In the circumstances, we see no reason to interfere with the
      judgment of the High Court. The SLPs are accordingly dismissed.


      Nidhi Jain                                                Petitions dismissed.
G




H