RAM RATI GOYAL Vs. HARMEET

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Appellants seek enhancement of the compensation of Rs. 11,51,625/- awarded by the Tribunal by an award dated 23.12.2010. Deceased Salajit Goyal was aged about 42 years on the date of the accident i.e. on 06.01.2010. He was survived by the Appellant Ram Rati Goyal (widow) and three sons.

(2.) The only ground urged by the learned counsel for the Appellants is that the deceased's income at Rs. 1,15,632/- was established as per the Income Tax Return for the previous year 2008-2009, yet the Tribunal took an annual income of the deceased to be Rs. 1,00,000/- to calculate the dependency. For the assessment year 2007-2008, the deceased's income was Rs. 1,08,151/-. There was savings of Rs. 11,648/- under Section 80 C of the Income Tax Act. Income for the year 2008-2009 was Rs. 1,15,632/- and there was no savings under Section 80C. The Tribunal was perhaps under the impression that the amount of Rs. 11,648/- two years prior to the accident was towards expenditure on business and that is why the annual income was assessed to be about Rs. 1,00,000/-. This finding, to my mind, cannot be sustained. The deceased's income ought to have been taken at Rs.1,15,632/-.

(3.) It is urged by the learned counsel for the Appellant that although the Tribunal noticed that there was gradual increase in the deceased's income as per the Income Tax Return for the year 2007-2008 and 2008-2009, yet the future prospects were not taken into consideration. During inquiry it was stated by the Appellant No.1 in her deposition as PW-1 that the deceased was running a Kiryana shop in his house. Apart from the widow (Appellant No.1), the deceased had three grown up sons who could look after the shop. Appellant No.1's testimony that the shop was closed after the deceased's death has to be taken with a pinch of salt. The Appellants were, therefore, not entitled to any additional compensation on account of future prospects.