9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2020 (6) TMI 387X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the side of the road at Village Chandini near Tanakpur - Khatema Road, Uttarakhand. The deceased had gone to answer nature's call on the side of the road, when at about 2:30 p.m., one Tata Sumo bearing No. UP02D5208, being driven at a high speed from the wrong side of the road, hit the deceased, and seriously injured him. The Enforcement Team was able to stop the offending vehicle, however the driver of the vehicle fled from the spot. While Harish Singh Arya was being taken to Bareilly for hospitalization, he succumbed to his injuries. The F.I.R. of the accident was lodged by Mr. Govind Lal Arya, the uncle of the deceased, at P.S. Banbasa. 3. The Claimants filed a Claim Petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Haldwani - Court o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f his income towards personal expenses, and adopted the multiplier of 16. Accordingly, the loss of dependency was computed at Rs. 12,20,000. The MACT further awarded Rs. 20,000 to the widow towards loss of consortium, Rs. 10,000 to the minor daughters towards loss of love and affection, and Rs. 5,000 towards funeral expenses. The total compensation awarded to the Claimants worked out to Rs. 12,55,000 with Interest @6% p.a. The Respondent No. 1 - Insurance Company was held liable for payment of compensation to the Claimants. 5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid Award, the Insurance Company filed Appeal from Order No. 117 of 2010 before the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital. The learned Single Judge of the High Court vide the impugned judgme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from Rs. 10,000 to Rs. 5,000. However, the amount of Rs. 5,000 awarded by the MACT towards funeral expenses was maintained. The total compensation awarded to the Claimants was reduced from Rs. 12,55,000 to Rs. 5,81,440. 6. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated 22.07.2016 passed by the High Court, the Claimants have filed the present civil appeal. This Court while issuing notice to the Respondents on 23.10.2018, recorded the submission made on behalf of the Claimants that the deceased was not a Government employee. 7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. We find that the impugned order passed by the High Court bristles with serious factual inaccuracies :- first, the learned Single Judge ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the ITR for the year 2005-06, which bears the rubber stamp of the Income Tax Department, and reveals the income of the deceased at Rs. 98,100 p.a. during the previous assessment year. As a consequence, the impugned judgment dated 22.07.2016 passed by the High Court is hereby set aside. 8. On a perusal of the documentary evidence on record i.e. the ITRs for the assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07, filed prior to the death of the deceased, which reflect the income of approximately Rs. 1,00,000 p.a. (as assessed by the MACT in its Award dated 22.12.2009), we make this the basis for computing the compensation payable to the Claimants. We find that the Courts below have not awarded any amount towards future prospects, as mandated by the jud ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
