IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD vs SUNITA & ORS

Judgment text excerpt

$~1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: 04.04.2025 + MAC.APP. 905/2014 IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD .....Appellant Through: Ms. Khushi Sachdeva, Advocate for Mr. Pankaj Seth, Advocate. versus SUNITA & ORS .....Respondents Through: Dr. L.S. Chaudhary, Dr. Ajay Chaudhary, Mr. Vikram Singh, Mr. Bharat Chaudhary & Mr. Anirudh Sharma, Advocates for R-1 to 3 with R-1 in person. Mr. Suraj Pradhan, Advocate for R-4. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU TARA VITASTA GANJU, J.: (Oral) 1. The present Appeal has been filed on behalf of the Appellant under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 [hereinafter referred to as “MV Act”] impugning the award dated 31.07.2014 [hereinafter referred to as “Impugned Award”] passed by the learned Presiding Officer, MACT (SE- 01), Saket Courts, New Delhi. By the Impugned Order, compensation in the sum of Rs. 38,21,500/- has been awarded along with interest thereon. 2. The only challenge that is raised by the Appellant before this Court is that in computation of income, the learned Tribunal has taken into consideration the fact that there was rental income mentioned in the Income Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JAI NARAYAN Signing Date:02.05.2025 MAC.APP. 905/2014 Page 1 of 7 19:00:09 Tax Returns filed by the deceased. 2.1. Learned Counsel for the Appellant contends that the Income Tax Return of the deceased for the Assessment Years 2011-12 reveals ‘income from house property’ at Rs.1,74,220/- and thus, the learned Tribunal could not have awarded the amount as the factor of loss of dependency cannot be calculated on the basis of 'income from house property'. 3. Learned Counsel for the Respondents/Claimants, refutes these contentions. It is submitted that the findings in the Impugned Award d