Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 2297 (RAJ)

Pushpa Goyal v. Suraj Prakash

2011-11-01

MOHAMMAD RAFIQ

body2011
Hon'ble RAFIQ, J.—This appeal has been preferred by claimant-appellants aggrieved by award dated 15.10.2001 of learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur City, Jaipur, in MAC Case No.462/1998, whereby learned Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.14,07,000/- against the claim of Rs.50,12,000/- for death of Mahendra Kumar Goyal, husband of appellant No.1 Smt. Pushpa Goyal. Deceased Mahendra Kumar Goyal died in a road accident caused by vehicle (truck) No.RJ-01-G-963, which was being driven by non-claimant No.1 Suraj Prakash in rash and negligent manner. The vehicle was insured by respondent oriental insurance company limited and owned by respondent Kishori Lal Yadav. 2. Contention of learned counsel for the appellants is that the deceased was working as Assistant Manager with Uco Bank and his monthly gross salary at that time was Rs.15,040/- and learned Tribunal has erred in law in not granting any compensation under the head of future prospects whereases, as per ratio of judgment of the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another – (2009) 6 SCC 121 = 2009(1) CCR 276 (SC) = 2009(4) RLW 2785 (SC), in view of age of the deceased who was 48 years at the relevant time, the claimants should have been granted 30% under the head of future prospects. Learned Tribunal further erred in law in observing that since no deductions are being made out of the said amount of gross salary, total amount of Rs.15,000/- can be accepted as monthly income of the deceased inclusive of the element of future prospects. It was argued that as per aforesaid judgment in Sarla Verma, there being four claimants, deduction of only 1/4th ought to have been made for self-expenses of the deceased rather applying the unit system. He further argued that instead of 10, multiplier of 13 should have been applied as per judgment of the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma and as per second schedule appended to the Motor vehicles Act. 3. Contention of learned counsel for respondents is that since income of the deceased at the relevant time was more than Rs.15,000/-, which was taxable income, and, even element of future prospect is added thereto then the income will be taxable, therefore, there should be deduction of income-tax at-least to the extent of 10%. 3. Contention of learned counsel for respondents is that since income of the deceased at the relevant time was more than Rs.15,000/-, which was taxable income, and, even element of future prospect is added thereto then the income will be taxable, therefore, there should be deduction of income-tax at-least to the extent of 10%. He further argued that Statutory provisions clearly indicate that compensation must be "just" and it cannot be a bonanza; not a source of profit but the same should not be a pittance and in this case the award passed by the learned Tribunal is just and reasonable and should not be interfered with. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, I find that in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma, the arguments of learned counsel for the appellants that there should be 30% addition to the income under the head of future prospects and that deduction for self-expenses of the deceased should be only 1/4th thereof, keeping in view number of claimants, deserve to be accepted. After adding 30% to the amount of Rs.15,000/-, the monthly income of the deceased should be taken to Rs.19,500/- and after deducting 1/4th therefrom towards his his self-expenses, his monthly income comes to Rs.14,625/-. Instead of 10, the multiplier of 13 is adopted in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma, supra. The compensation under the head of loss of dependency comes to Rs.22,81,500/- calculating thus – 14625x12x13, and, after deducting 10% towards income-tax, the net amount payable under the head of loss of dependency comes to Rs.20,53,350/-. The amount of Rs.2,28,150/- i.e. 10% thereof should be remitted to the income-tax department so that the appellants may not be further saddled with that liability. Deduction of the said amount for payment of income-tax would be subject to assessment made by the Income Tax Department. The amount of Rs.20,53,350/- cannot be considered to be a bonanza. The amount of Rs.2,28,150/- i.e. 10% thereof should be remitted to the income-tax department so that the appellants may not be further saddled with that liability. Deduction of the said amount for payment of income-tax would be subject to assessment made by the Income Tax Department. The amount of Rs.20,53,350/- cannot be considered to be a bonanza. This is because even at the time of his death in the year 1998, the deceased was getting handsome monthly salary as he was in a senior position working as Assistant Manager with the Uco Bank and he would have been in service of the Bank for ten more years till his attaining the age of superannuation i.e. 60 years and even if the total amount of Rs.20,53,350/- is invested in any nationalized bank at the rate of 7.5%, per annum, monthly interest thereof would not exceed to Rs.13000/-. The compensation of Rs.15,000/- under non-pecuniary heads i.e. loss of love and affection and for funeral expenses, is maintained. 5. The appellants thus be entitled to receive a sum of Rs.20,68,350/- (Rupees twenty lac sixty eight thousand three hundred fifty only) as total compensation. The appellants would be entitled for interest at the rate of 7.5% on the enhanced amount of compensation from the date of filing of the claim petition. Compliance of the order be made within three months. The appeal is accordingly allowed in part.