(Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL) The present appeal arises against judgment and award passed by the Tribunal dated 22.02.2011 in M.A.C.P. No.249 of 1996 whereby the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.24,40,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a. The relevant facts are that on 29.12.1995 at about 1:30 p.m. on National Highway No.8, Opposite Rohit Paper Mill, Pardi, one contesa car bearing registration No.GJ-5-F-535 was being driven by one Sanjiv Arora and the said car met with an accident with container/truck bearing registration No.MH-04-F-1983, insured with the appellant-insurance company. As a result thereof, Sanjiv Arora together with his wife and brother and maidservant sustained injuries and thereafter Sanjiv Arora succumbed to the injuries, it gave rise to various claim petitions but in the present appeal we are concerned with M.A.C.P. No.249 of 1996, which was preferred for the compensation of Rs.30,00,000/-. The Tribunal, at the conclusion of the proceedings in the present claim petition, awarded the aforesaid amount of Rs.24,40,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a. Under the circumstances, the present appeal before this Court.
We have heard Mr.Mehta, learned counsel for the appellant.
The first contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the income assessed by the Tribunal is on higher side inasmuch as per the average of the Income Tax Returns, the Tribunal having found that the average would be Rs.1,71,822/-, for the purposes of dependency benefit it has assessed to Rs.2,00,000/year and, therefore, there is an error committed by the Tribunal. The learned counsel also submitted that the Tribunal ought not to have relied upon the gross figure of the Income Tax Returns and ought to have considered the net income as shown in the Income Tax Returns.
The examination of the said contention shows that the copy of the Income Tax Returns were produced before the Tribunal and the statement showing computation of the income was also produced. It appears that figure of net profit as reflected in the Income Tax Returns has been taken into consideration by the Tribunal and under these circumstances the Tribunal has, having found that the income was fluctuated by not giving full benefit of 50% towards perspective income, assessed the income at Rs.2,00,000/year. In our view even if the last Income Tax Return is taken into consideration and as against the same, the assessment of the yearly income at Rs.2,00,000/- is made by the Tribunal keeping in view the perspective income also, the approach on the part of the Tribunal cannot be said to be unreasonable and, therefore, it cannot be said that any error has been committed. Further, when the income has been considered taking the net income as per the Profit & Loss A/c. as reflected in the Computation of Income, such also cannot be said to be an error on the part of the Tribunal, which may call for interference.
It was next contended by learned advocate for the appellant that the multiplier applied by the Tribunal should have been 17% as per the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Varma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., 2009 (6) SCC 121 and more particularly the observations made at Paragraph No.42 of the said decision, whereas the Tribunal has given the multiplier of 18 and, therefore, this Court may interfere.
If the overall facts and circumstances of the case for the dependency benefits are taken into consideration, it does appear that the deceased was running regular business and such was also reflected in the Income Tax Returns. Therefore, it was not a case where there was no regular income, whereas the Tribunal considered as fluctuation in the income and, therefore, 50% rise for the purposes of consideration of perspective income was not fully given. Under the circumstances, we find that when there is a difference of only one multiplier amounting to Rs.1,33,334/- as against the perspective income considered on a lesser side, it would not be a case for interference. Hence, the said contention could not be a case for interference.
No other contention has been raised. In the result, the appeal is meritless and, therefore, dismissed.
In view of the order passed in the main First Appeal, Civil Application would not survive. Hence, the same is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
[JAYANT PATEL,J] Sd/-
[R.M.CHHAYA, J ] *** Bhavesh* Top