Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1226 (MP)

National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Janki Bai

2010-12-13

PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA

body2010
JUDGMENT Prakash Shrivastava, J. 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been filed by the Insurance Company against the award dated 14th February, 2008, passed by the learned IV Member Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Fast Track Court), Manawar District Dhar in Claim Case No. 126/07. 2. One Amar Singh had suffered injuries in the road motor accident, which had taken place on 29th April, 2007 and had died on account of those injuries. The Respondents, who were dependent of the deceased had filed the claim petition before the Tribunal. The Tribunal found that at the time of the accident, the deceased was aged 54 years. The Tribunal applied the multiplier of 11. The Tribunal assessed the annual income of the deceased as Rs. 2,22,156/- and after deducting 1/3 towards the self expenses calculated the loss of dependency as Rs. 16,29,144/-. The Tribunal further awarded a sum of Rs. 2,000/- for funeral expenses and Rs. 5,000/- for loss of consortium to the wives. Thus, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs. 16,36,144/- to the claimants. The Tribunal awarded interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum from the date of application till realization on the aforesaid amount. 3. It is not necessary to narrate the entire facts in detail, such as how the accident occurred, negligence in driving the offending vehicle and the issue of liability as to who is liable to pay compensation. The Tribunal has already recorded the findings on these issues in favour of the Appellants. None of those findings have been assailed at the instance of the Respondents i.e. owner/driver/insurance Company by filing cross appeal or cross objection. Thus, it is not necessary to burden the judgment by detailing the facts on the said issues. 4. Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant Insurance Company challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, submitted that the Tribunal has applied the multiplier ignoring that the deceased was to retire in the next six years. He further submitted that the Tribunal should have deducted tax from the salary of the deceased while calculating his income. 5. Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents supporting the award submitted that the compensation which has been awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and there is no scope for any interference in this appeal by this Court. 6. He further submitted that the Tribunal should have deducted tax from the salary of the deceased while calculating his income. 5. Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents supporting the award submitted that the compensation which has been awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and there is no scope for any interference in this appeal by this Court. 6. I have learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record. 7. On perusal of the award, it is noticed that the deceased was in Government service and a salarised person and on the basis of his salary certificate Ext. P/7, the Tribunal has assessed his annual income. The date of his birth is 15th July, 1952 therefore, the Tribunal has assessed the age of the deceased about 54 years. Undisputedly the deceased would have retired from service in the next six years, but that alone does not make the award of the Tribunal excessive. So far as the income of the deceased which has been assessed by the Tribunal is concerned, the deceased was earning Rs. 2,22,156/- per year. After allowing the permissible deduction and taking into the initial slab of the tax, it is found that the amount which the Appellant would have been paying as tax would be a small amount. The award also incites that there are as many as five claimants in this case whereas the Tribnal has deducted only 1/3r towards the self expenses whereas in terms of the judgment in the matter of Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation 2009 A.C.J. 1298 : 2009 (2) T.A.C. 677, 1/4 was required to be deducted towards the self expenses and 3/4 was required to be calculated as loss of dependency. The Tribunal has also not awarded any sum to the children of the deceased under the head of loss of love and affection. Thus, even if the Tribunal has calculated the compensation amount by applying the multiplier and assessing the income of the deceased slightly on the higher side that is equalized because the Tribunal did not properly calculate the loss of dependency and did not award the sum under the head of love and affection. Thus, the amount awarded by the Tribunal is not on the higher side. 8. Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant has placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Shyamwati Sharma and Ors. Thus, the amount awarded by the Tribunal is not on the higher side. 8. Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant has placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Shyamwati Sharma and Ors. v. Karan Singh and Ors. passed in Civil Appeal No. 5316/2010 decided on 13th July, 2010. Wherein in an accident of the year 1990, the Tribunal had deducted 30% towards the income tax in which the Supreme Court had refused to interfere. In the present case, the accident is of the year 2007 and looking into the extent of salary of the deceased, the rate of tax and permissible limit, it is found that it would not be just and proper to hold that 30% flat is required to be deducted from the gross-salary of the deceased as income-tax. 9. Thus, considering the entire circumstances of the case, no ground is made out for any interference by this Court in the award passed by the Tribunal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with no orders as to costs.