Trial Court Held That Deceased Gurjit Singh Was Murdered Byrajinder Pal Singh Alias Pappu (Defendant). It Considered The Income Taxreturns Of Deceased And Award v. I Have Heard The Learned Counsels For Parties And Have Also

Sanjiv Kumar Sharma2018.05.01 15:55I attest to the accuracy andauthenticity of this document IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA’AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 4822 of 2016 (O/M)Date of decision: 152018 | Rajinder Pal Singh alias Pappu a... Appellant 2#,'1' Sukhjeet Kaur and others ....... Respondents CORAM °HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDIP SINGH Present:-Mr. Vikas Bahl, Senior Advocate, with,Ms. Japneet Kaur, Advocate,Ms. Japneet Kaur, Advocate, for appellant. Mr. L.S. Sidhu, Advocate,for respondents. 1]Whether the Reporters of local newspaper may be allowed to.see the judgment ? ?DTo be referred to the Reporter or not. 3Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? KULDIP SINGH J. Impugned in regular second appeal is judgment dated 8.7.2016,passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, affirming judgmentand decree dated 14.8.2013, passed by learned Additional Civil Judge(Senior Division), Patiala, vide which suit of plaintiffs was decreed againstdefendant Rajinder Pal Singh alias Pappu. Plaintiffs were held entitled torecovery of Rs. 20,00,000/- from defendant Rajinder Pal Singh alias Pappuon account of damages due to murder of Gurjit Singh alongwith interest atthe rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of institution of suit till date ofdecree. Plaintiffs were also held entitled for future interest at the rate of 6per cent per annum on the said amount of Rs. 20,00,000/- from Rajinder Pal RSA No. 4822 of 2016 (O/M) Sanjiv Kumar Sharma2018.05.01 15:55I attest to the accuracy andauthenticity of this documenta Singh alias Pappu (defendant). Brief facts of the case which are required to be noticed forpurpose of disposal of this appeal are that on 5.3.2005, at about 1:30 PM,Gurjit Singh (since deceased) alognwith Teja Singh son of Narata Singh(also deceased) was about to go in Tata Siera bearing registration No.PB-11-H-0416, parked in front of Lamba Bakery and was to go towardsBrahm Kumari Ashram, backside of Modi College, Patiala, defendantRajinder Pal Singh alias Pappu came in a white Maruti car bearingregistration No. PB-11-R-5488 from behind. He was armed with 12 boregun. He stopped his car in front of vehicle of Gurjit Singh and fired twoshots upon Gurjit Singh which hit him near the right side of neck and the ear.Teja Singh came out of car and ran towards back side. Defendant then fireda shot on Teja Singh which hit him on his back and he fell down. Theoccurrence was witnessed by Ranbir Singh, Karamjit Singh and NarinderSingh who raised alarm. Rajinder Pal Singh fled away from the spot.Gurjit Singh was taken to Rajindera Hospital, Patiala, where he wasdeclared brought dead. Teja Singh was also taken to said hospital, but hesuccumbed to injuries. Plaintiffs claim that deceased Gurjit Singh washusband of plaintiff No. 1 and father of minor plaintiffs No. 2 and 3 and sonof defendant No. 2. Gurjit Singh was 35 years of age and was having aflourishing farming as well as business of commission agent under the nameand style of M/s Gurjit Singh Chand Singh being partner. He was regularincome tax assessee and earning Rs. 45,000/- per month. He was spendingRs. 30,000/- per month on plaintiffs. On account of murder of Gurjit Singh,plaintifis suffered loss to the tune of Rs. 50,00,000/- for which they claimdamages. RSA No. 4822 of 2016 (O/M) Sanjiv Kumar Sharma2018.05.01 15:55I attest to the accuracy andauthenticity of this document7@7 In the written statement, defendant denied to have murderedGurjit Singh and Teja Singh. The income and job of deceased was alsodenied. Parties went on trial on following issues :- inWhether the plaintiffs are entitled to damages on account of thedeath of Gurjit Singh caused by the defendant, if so, to what amount ? OPP2 Whether suit in present form is not maintainable ? OPD 3,Whether the suit is bad for mis joinder of cause of action ? OPD4Whether the suit is within time ? OPP5 Relief.4Whether the suit is within time ? OPP5 Relief. RSA No. 4822 of 2016 (O/M) Sanjiv Kumar Sharma2018.05.01 15:55I attest to the accuracy andauthenticity of this document7@7 In the written statement, defendant denied to have murderedGurjit Singh and Teja Singh. The income and job of deceased was alsodenied. Parties went on trial on following issues :- inWhether the plaintiffs are entitled to damages on account of thedeath of Gurjit Singh caused by the defendant, if so, to what amount ? OPP2 Whether suit in present form is not maintainable ? OPD 3,Whether the suit is bad for mis joinder of cause of action ? OPD4Whether the suit is within time ? OPP5 Relief.4Whether the suit is within time ? OPP5 Relief. Trial Court held that deceased Gurjit Singh was murdered byRajinder Pal Singh alias Pappu (defendant). It considered the income taxreturns of deceased and awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.20,00,000/-. In the appeal, lower appellate Court held that deceased washaving business income of Rs. 63,910/- per annum and Rs. 80,000/- perannum as agriculture income. Therefore, it was held that deceased must beearning Rs. 10,000/- per month. His annual income was calculatedat Rs. 1,20,000/-. Multiplier of 15 was applied keeping in view the age ofdeceased who is stated to be 35 years. Therefore, while applying theauthority ofSarla Verma and others Versus Delhi Transport Corporationand another, 2009 ACJ 1298, it was held that wife is entitled toRs.1,00,000/- on account of loss of consortium and children are entitled toRs.2,00,000/- on account of loss of love and affection. Accordingly,compensation was calculated at Rs. 20,00,000/-. I have heard the learned counsels for parties and have also carefully gone through the file. Before this Court, it has been vehemently argued on behalf RSA No. 4822 of 2016 (O/M) Sanjiv Kumar Sharma2018.05.01 15:55I attest to the accuracy andauthenticity of this document~2p of appellant that Courts below have gravely erred in including agricultureincome of deceased in total income. Therefore, findings are perverse andcan be interfered in regular second appeal. It has been further argued that asheld recently inPankajakshi (Dead) Through L.Rs. and others VersusChandrika and others, 2016 (2) RCR (Civil) 245 that in the matter ofregular second appeal, this Court is governed by Section 41 of Punjab CourtsAct, 1918, which is more wider than Section 100 CPC, 1908. Therefore, ithas been pressed that when there is misreading of evidence, perversity andwrong application of law, then this Court can interfere in regular secondappeal. So taras liability of appellant-defendant No. | is concerned, it hascome out that appellant was convicted by Sessions Court for murder ofGurjit Singh and Teja Singh. His appeal has since been dismissed by thisCourt. This Court is also informed that appellant has already undergonesentence and has since been released on bail. In this way, judgment ofcriminal Court has become final. Before this Court, appeal has been pressedon behalf of appellant only on the point of quantum of compensation. The learned senior counsel for appellant has argued that in thiscase, income tax returns were relied upon by lower appellate Court whereasonly photocopies were placed on file. However, perusal of file shows thatplaintiff Sukhjeet Kaur had appeared alongwith original income tax returnsand produced photocopies thereof which were exhibited without anyobjection. Therefore, lower appellate Court was justified in relying upon|income tax returns of deceased. The murder was committed on 5.3.2005.Therefore, income tax return (P-20) for the year 2003-2004 is relevantwherein business income of deceased is shown as Rs. 63,910/- andagriculture income is shown as Rs. 80,000/-. The learned senior counsel has RSA No. 4822 of 2016 (O/M) Sanjiv Kumar Sharma2018.05.01 15:55I attest to the accuracy andauthenticity of this document7*7 RSA No. 4822 of 2016 (O/M) Sanjiv Kumar Sharma2018.05.01 15:55I attest to the accuracy andauthenticity of this document7*7 argued that agriculture income still persist after death of deceased, therefore,it could not be included in income of deceased. At the most, plaintiffs havesuffered the loss of management of agriculture for which salary of employeeto manage the land as in the year 2005 could be considered. The multiplierapplied by Courts below has not been disputed by parties. I am of the view that in case of agriculture income, agricultureland and income is still there even after death of deceased. ‘Therefore, theCourts below erred in including the agriculture income of deceased inincome of deceased. Therefore, in its place, a sum of Rs. 2,500/- as salaryfor employing a person to manage the land, as in the year 2005, is to beallowed. Therefore, the loss on account of management of agriculture landcomes to Rs. 30,000/- p.a. Therefore, in place of loss of agriculture incomeat the rate of Rs. 80,000/- per annum, Rs. 30,000/- is to be treated as loss ofmanagement of agriculture land. On account of loss of business,Rs. 63,910/- were added by the lower appellate Court. I am of the view thatthere is a tendency to show lower income in income tax return, the businessincome amounting to Rs. 63,910/- is observed to be incorrect which as perassessment of this Court should be around Rs. 96,000/- p.a. i.e. Rs. 8,000p.m. Now, one third of the business income i.e. Rs. 32,000/- is to bededucted as personal expenses for calculating the compensation. Thebusiness income for compensation comes to Rs. 64,000/- p.a. in whichRs. 30,000/- on account of loss of management of agriculture land is to beadded. ‘Therefore, the loss to plaintiffs comes to Rs. 94,000/- per annum.Applying multiplier of 15, it comes to Rs. 14,10,000/-. Rs. 1,00,000/- onaccount of loss of consortium to wife and Rs. 1,00,000/- on account of lossof love and affection to children are also to be allowed. Total amount of. RSA No. 4822 of 2016 (O/M) Sanjiv Kumar Sharma2018.05.01 15:55I attest to the accuracy andauthenticity of this document-O- compensation comes to Rs. 16,10,000/-. In view of findings recordedabove, it is held that in place of Rs. 20,00,000/-, plaintiffs are entitled tocompensation of Rs. 16,10,000/- alongwith interest as allowed by trial Court, In view of matter, with abovenoted modification in quantum ofcompensation, regular second appeal fails and is dismissed. Since regularsecond appeal is dismissed, pending application, if any, also stands disposedof. (KULDIP SINGH)JUDGE 152018sjks Whether speaking / reasoned)Yes/NoWhether Reportable)Yes/No