VIJAY KUMAR RASTOGI versus UTTAR PRADESH STATE ROADWAYS TRANSPORT CORPORATION

Citation: [2018] 2 S.C.R. 620 · Decided: 09-02-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DIPAK MISRA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
620
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 2 S.C.R.
VIJAY KUMAR RASTOGI
v.
UTTAR PRADESH STATE ROADWAYS TRANSPORT
CORPORATION
(Civil Appeal Nos. 11011-11012 of 2017)
FEBRUARY 09, 2018
[DIPAK MISRA, CJI, A. M. KHANWILKAR AND
DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, JJ.]
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
  [2018] 2 S.C.R. 620
620
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
621
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.
Case Law Reference
[2007] 13 SCR 352
   relied on
Para 11
[2008] 2 SCR 930
   relied on
Para 11
(2012) 8 SCC 604
   relied on
Para 11
(2014) 2 SCC 735
   relied on
Para 13
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 11011-
11012 of 2017.
From the Judgment and Order dated 06.12.2016 of the High Court
of Delhi at New Delhi in MAC Appeal No. 393 of 2009.
VIJAY KUMAR RASTOGI v. U.P. STATE ROADWAYS
TRANSPORT CORPORATION
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
622
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 2 S.C.R.
Ms. Rekha Rastogi, Pranab Kumar Mullick, Mrs. Soma Mullick,
Sebat Kumar Devria, Advs. for the Appellant.
Ms. Garima Prashad, Adv. for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
A. M. KHANWILKAR, J. 1. The present appeals take
exception to the judgment of the High Court of Delhi in MAC Appeal
No.393/2009 dated 6th December, 2016, whereby the High Court declined
to enhance the compensation amount awarded to the appellant by the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and to the order dated 18th January,
2017 dismissing the Review Petition No.20 of 2017.
2. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short, “the Tribunal”)
vide order dated 4th April, 2009, awarded compensa
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.