Full Text
MAC.APP.No.1048/2006
Date of Decision: 12th March, 2010 THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE ..... Appellant
Through : Mr. Pankaj Seth, Adv.
Through : Mr. Rajiv Bajaj, Adv. for R-1 to 5 along with R-1.
JUDGMENT
1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may YES be allowed to see the Judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? YES
3. Whether the judgment should be YES reported in the Digest? JUDGMENT (Oral)
1. The appellant has challenged the award of the learned Tribunal whereby compensation of Rs.17,85,000/- has been awarded to claimants/respondents No.1 to 5. The appellant seeks the reduction of the award amount.
2. The accident dated 25th March, 1997 resulted in the death of Parmod Kumar Pahwa. The deceased was survived by his widow, two minor children and parents who filed the claim petition before the learned Tribunal. 2010:DHC:1485
3. The deceased was aged about 38 years at the time of the accident and was carrying on business of sale of electronic goods in Thailand. It was claimed by the claimants that the deceased was earning 50,000/- Baht per month, equivalent to Rs.74,000/- per month in Indian currency. The Claims Tribunal took the income of the deceased as Rs.25,000/- per month, deducted 30% towards the Income Tax and 1/3rd towards the personal expenses of the deceased and applied the multiplier of 12 to compute the loss of dependency at Rs.16,80,048/-. Rs.25,000/- has been awarded towards loss of love and affection, Rs.25,000/towards loss of consortium, Rs.50,000/- towards cost of air travel of the claimants to India and Rs.5,000/- towards the funeral expenses. The total compensation awarded is Rs.17,85,000/-.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant has urged at the time of hearing of this appeal that the income of the deceased has not been duly proved and, therefore, minimum wages be taken into consideration for computation of compensation.
5. The learned counsel for claimants/respondents No.1 to 5 submit that the income of the deceased has been duly proved. The learned counsel for claimant/respondent Nos.[1] to 5 has made following submissions:-
(i) The Claims Tribunal has erred in deducting 30%
(ii) The Claims Tribunal has deducted 1/3rd towards the personal expenses whereas the appropriate deduction should have been 1/4th considering that the deceased left behind five legal representatives.
(iii) The Claims Tribunal has applied the multiplier of
(iv) The Claims Tribunal has awarded lower rate of interest of 7% per annum against 7.5% per annum.
6. With respect to the income of the deceased, the widow of the deceased appeared before the Claims Tribunal as PW-4 and deposed that the deceased was carrying on the business of readymade garments, electronics and cosmetics and was earning 14,000/- Baht per month equivalent to Rs.25,000/- per month in Indian currency. She further deposed that her husband was Income Tax payee. The certificate of withholding of Tax was proved as Ex.PW4/1 and Ex.PW4/2. The deceased had a bank account in Thailand Military Bank and the statement of account was exhibited as Ex.PW4/3. The copy of the another statement of account in the same Bank was exhibited as Ex.PW4/4. PW-4 further deposed that the deceased used to give 12,000 Baht for household expenses. The son of the deceased was studying at that time in 7th Standard in Thai Sikh International School. The receipt of the school fees was placed on record. The deceased was maintaining a car. The deceased was also maintaining a servant in his house. The deceased visited India two days before the accident for admission of his son in Nainital and had brought Rs.1,00,000/- for the said admission. The family of the deceased returned back to India on receiving the news of his death after spending Rs.50,000/- as air fare. The business of the deceased was closed after his death.
7. From the aforesaid evidence on record, this Court is of the view that the income of the deceased at the time of the accident was Rs.15,000/- per month. The Claims Tribunal has deducted 30% towards Income Tax, 1/3rd towards personal expenses and applied the multiplier of 12 which is contrary to law. The Income Tax, after permissible deductions, would be 10% of the income of the deceased. According to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2009 (6) Scale 129, the personal expenses of the deceased should have been taken as 1/4th and the multiplier of 15 should have been applied. The appropriate rate of interest according to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dharampal & Ors. vs. U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, III 2008 ACC (1) SC is 7.5%.
8. Taking the income of the deceased to be Rs.15,000/per month, deducting 10% towards the Income Tax and 1/4th towards the personal expenses of the deceased and applying the multiplier of 15, the loss of dependency is computed as Rs.18,22,500/-. Adding Rs.25,000/- towards loss of love and affection, Rs.25,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs.50,000/- for air travel of the claimants and Rs.5,000/- for funeral expenses, the total compensation is computed to be Rs.19,27,500/-. However, since the claimants have not filed the cross-objections, enhancement is not warranted.
9. This case is squarely covered by Section 167 of the Indian Evidence Act which is reproduced hereunder:- “Section 167 – No new trial for improper admission or rejection of evidence – The improper admission or rejection of evidence shall not be ground of itself for a new trial or reversal of any decision in any case, if it shall appear to the Court before which such objection is raised that, independently of the evidence objected to and admitted, there was sufficient evidence to justify the decision, or that, if the rejected evidence had been received, it ought not to have varied the decision.”
10. Improper admission or rejection of evidence is not by itself a ground for reversal of a decision, if there is other evidence to support it. Where admissible evidence has been improperly rejected or inadmissible evidence has been admitted by the Judge, such improper reception or rejection of evidence shall not of itself be a ground for new trial or reversal of any decision in any case, unless substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has been thereby occasioned; or, in other words, if the Court considers that after leaving aside the evidence that has been improperly admitted, there was enough evidence on the record to justify the decision of the lower court, or that if the rejected evidence were admitted the decision ought not have been affected thereby, no Court of appeal should set it aside.
11. An objection to the improper admission of evidence is material only if it can be shown that the exclusion of evidence improperly admitted is fatal to the decision. A finding will not, therefore, be disturbed if, throwing aside the evidence which ought not to have been admitted, there, still remains sufficient evidence to support the finding. Under Section 167 of the Evidence Act, the improper admission of evidence is not in itself ground for a new trial or reversal of decision, if independently of the evidence of improperly admitted there is sufficient evidence to justify the decision.
12. In Owners & Parties vs. Fernandeo Lopez, AIR 1989 SC 2206, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:- “Rules of procedure are not by themselves an end but the means to achieve the ends of justice. Rules of procedure are tools forged to achieve justice and are not hurdles to obstruct the pathway to justice. Construction of a rule of procedure which promotes justice and prevents its miscarriage by enabling the Court to do justice in myriad situations, all of which cannot be envisaged, acting within the limits of the permissible construction, must be preferred to that which is rigid and negatives the cause of justice. The reason is obvious. Procedure is meant to subserve and not rule the cause of justice. Where the outcome and fairness of the procedure adopted is not doubted and the essentials of the prescribed procedure have been followed, there is no reason to discard the result simply because certain details which have not prejudicially affected the result have been inadvertently omitted in a particular case. In our view, this appears to be the pragmatic approach which needs to be adopted while construing a purely procedural provision. Otherwise, rules of procedure will become the mistress instead of remaining the handmaid of justice, contrary to the role attributed to it in our legal system.” (Para 18)
13. In Emperor vs Ermanali & Ors., AIR 1930 Calcutta 212, Full Bench of Calcutta High Court held as under:- “Rules and Regulations are intended to be the handmaid and not the mistress of the law, and that in criminal proceedings it is of the utmost importance that a decision just, and reasonable on the merits should not be disturbed because in the course of the proceedings some flaw can be detected that is not fundamental and which is not proved to have worked injustice to the accused, although it may constitute a breach of the rules of criminal procedure.” (Para 33)
14. In John vs Sherthali Muncipality, AIR 1959 Kerala 323, the Kerala High Court held as under:- “It is therefore clear that the learned Magistrate committed a grave error in examining the accused person without his request and against his protest, to prove a fact which the prosecution should have established by other evidence. That, however, is in my opinion, no ground to quash the entire proceedings, Section 167, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 provides inter alia that improper admission of evidence shall not be ground of itself for a new trial or reversal of any decision in any case, if it shall appear to the Court before which such objection is raised that independently of the evidence objected to and admitted, there was sufficient evidence to justify the decision. The question whether the prosecution was sustainable or the conviction was rightly made has therefore to be examined eschewing altogether the evidence furnished by the accused while under examination as a court witness.”
15. The award of Rs.17,85,000/- of the Claims Tribunal is upheld for the reasons mentioned above. The appeal is dismissed.
16. The appellant has deposited the entire award amount along with interest with the Claims Tribunal. The Claims Tribunal is directed to release 10% of the amount to respondent No.1. The remaining 90% of the amount be kept in fixed deposit in the following manner:-
(i) Fixed deposit in respect of 10% of the amount in the name of respondent No.5 for a period of one year.
(ii) Fixed deposit in respect of 10% of the amount in the name of respondent No.1 for a period of two years.
(iii) Fixed deposit in respect of 10% of the amount in the name of respondent No.4 for a period of three years.
(iv) Fixed deposit in respect of 10% of the amount in the name of respondent No.1 for a period of four years.
(v) Fixed deposit in respect of 10% of the amount in the name of respondent No.2 for a period of five years.
(vi) Fixed deposit in respect of 10% of the amount in the name of respondent No.3 for a period of six years.
(vii) Fixed deposit in respect of 10% of the amount in the name of respondent No.3 for a period of seven years.
(viii) Fixed deposit in respect of 10% of the amount in the name of respondent No.1 for a period of eight years.
(ix) Fixed deposit in respect of 10% of the amount in the name of respondent No.1 for a period of nine years.
17. The interest on the aforesaid fixed deposits of respondents No.1 to 3 shall be paid monthly by automatic credit of interest in the Savings Account of respondent No.1. The interest on the fixed deposits of respondents No.4 and 5 shall be paid monthly by automatic credit of interest in the Savings Account of respondent No.5.
18. Withdrawal from the aforesaid account shall be permitted to respondents No.1 and 5 after due verification and the Bank shall issue photo Identity Card to respondents No.1 and 5 to facilitate identity.
19. No cheque book be issued to respondents No.1 and 5 without the permission of this Court.
20. The Bank shall issue Fixed Deposit Pass Book instead of the FDRs to respondents No.1 and 5 and the maturity amount of the FDRs be automatically credited to the Saving Bank Account of the beneficiaries at the end of the FDR.
21. No loan, advance or withdrawal shall be allowed on the said fixed deposit receipts without the permission of this Court.
22. Half yearly statement of account be filed by the Bank in this Court.
23. On the request of respondents No.1 and 5, the Bank shall transfer the Savings Account to any other branch according to the convenience of respondents No.1 and 5.
24. Respondent Nos.[1] to 5 shall furnish all the relevant documents for opening of the Saving Bank Account and Fixed Deposit Account to Mr. M.M. Tandon, Member-Retail Team, UCO Bank Zonal, Parliament Street, New Delhi.
25. The previous order of release passed by this Court stands modified to the above extent and, if any existing FDR has to be renewed, it may be done by the Bank within the ambit of this order.
26. The learned counsel for claimants/respondents No.1 to 5 submit that some more amount may be released to respondent No.1 at this stage. Liberty given to respondent No.1 to move an appropriate application after utilization of the amount directed to be released.
27. All pending applications stand disposed of.
28. The statutory amount deposited by the appellant be returned back to the appellant through counsel within four weeks
29. Copy of the order be given dasti to counsel for both the parties under the signatures of the Court Master.
30. Copy of this order be also sent to Mr. M.M. Tandon, Member-Retail Team, UCO Bank Zonal, Parliament Street, New Delhi (Mobile No. 09310356400) through the UCO Bank, High Court Branch under the signature of Court Master. J.R. MIDHA, J MARCH 12, 2010 mk