Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – s.166 – Just compensation – Loss of taxable income – Consideration of, while determining compensation – Held: Income should include those benefits which are taken into consideration for payment of income tax – Tribunal erred in not considering income from other sources namely bank interest and commission over and above his salary as disclosed in the income tax return filed by claimant-appellant on the ground that commission and interest could not be considered for computation of loss of income.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. The High Court noted the taxable income disclosed in tax return of the appellant for the relevant period as Rs.77,480/- 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/- 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 the head towards loss of income. This is the manifest error committed by the High Court. The computation of taxable income as disclosed by the appellant in his tax return for the assessment year 2004-2005 for the previous year ended on 31st March, 2004, unambiguously reinforces the claim of the appellant that his 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. [Paras 11, 12][626-H; 627-A-B, E]
2. The appellant has also claimed further compensation towards damage to his Maruti Car which, according to the appellant, was completely damaged. The Tribunal did not analyse this claim at all. That grievance was made by the appellant before the High Court, claiming compensation of Rs.80,000/- towards the same. The High Court 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 these appeals, the appellant failed to invite attention of this Court to any document on record in support of the said claim. There is no reason to interfere with the opinion expressed by the High Court on the issue under consideration. [Para 14][628-C-F]
Sayed Sadiq v. Divisional Manager United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (2014) 2 SCC 735 ; National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Indira Srivastava and Ors. (2008) 2 SCC 763 : [2007] 13 SCR 352 ; Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Jashuben and Ors. (2008) 4 SCC 162 : [2008] 2 SCR 930 ; Kavita v. Deepak and Ors. (2012) 8 SCC 604 – relied on.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.