Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1929 (ALL)

Ram Lali v. Dharmendra Kumar Singh

2015-07-16

ANANT KUMAR, SATYENDRA SINGH CHAUHAN

body2015
JUDGMENT This appeal has been filed challenging the judgment award dated 15.2.2014 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal ( for short 'the Tribunal'). 2. The judgment and award passed by the Tribunal has been challenged on the short question in regard to the calculation of deductions from the salary of the deceased. 3. The facts, giving rise to the present dispute, are that the deceased Ram Kripal Verma met with an accident on 13.2.2011 when he along with his wife was going on Scooter bearing No.UP 43/9156 from his ancestral house at Faizabad to Gonda and as soon as they reached near Maliyanpurwa on Faizabad-Gonda Road at about 6 PM, Truck bearing no.UP 42 T/4726, which was being driven rashly and negligently, hit the Scooter of the deceased on the right side, as a result of which Ram Kripal Verma and his wife received grievous injuries and both were admitted in District Hospital, Gonda, where Ram Kripal Verma was declared brought dead. 4. A claim petition was filed by the claimants claiming compensation by the wife and the dependents of the deceased. The evidence was led before the Tribunal by both the parties i.e. claimant and the respondents. The claimant filed a copy of the salary certificate to indicate that the gross salary of the deceased was Rs.35,034/- per month and against which total deduction of Rs.6,117/- was taking place. The Tribunal proceeded to calculate the income of the deceased by calculating the deduction in the form of GPF, DA and LIC. The total deductions were made Rs.6117/-, which included the unexplained deductions of Rs.2180/- and on that basis, proceeded to calculate the compensation by applying the multiplier of 13 considering the age of the deceased. The Tribunal ultimately proceeded to award compensation to the tune of Rs.26,46,455/- along with interest @ 7%, including 30% future prospects in view of the law laid down by the apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma ( Smt.) and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 . Feeling aggrieved with the said judgment and award, the present appeal has been filed. 5. Feeling aggrieved with the said judgment and award, the present appeal has been filed. 5. Submission of counsel for the appellants is that the deductions which have been made by the Tribunal while calculating the monthly income of the deceased, are not in accordance with the law laid down by the apex Court in the cases of Manasvi Jain v. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2014 (32) LCD 900 and Sunil Sharma and others v. Bachitar Singh and others, 2011 (III) D.M.P. 70 (S.C.). He also submits that the salary certificate was placed on record, which specifically indicated the deductions in the form of GPF, DA and LIC. He has also tried to persuade the Court that the unexplained deductions of Rs.2180/- may also not be deducted as they are in the form of allowances and they were being paid to the deceased. Therefore, the submission is that the Tribunal has erred in calculating the monthly income of the deceased and thereby awarding compensation to the claimants-appellants. 6. Counsel for the Insurance Company, on the other hand, has submitted that the Tribunal has rightly calculated the income and deductions which have been made from the salary of the deceased. He has also submitted that the other deductions which have been made, may not be justifiable to calculate in the income of the deceased in view of the law laid down by the apex Court, but he submits that the unexplained allowances and income is liable to be deduced from the salary of the deceased. He, therefore, submits that the Tribunal has not committed any illegality in calculating the income of the deceased and thereby awarding compensation to the deceased. 7. We have heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. In order to appreciate the argument of counsel for the appellants in regard to deductions, we have to advert the law laid down by the apex Court in the case of Manasvi Jain (supra), wherein the deductions in the form of GPF, Life Insurance Premium have been held to be included in the salary of the deceased instead of deducting them. While dealing with the controversy, the apex Court in paras 11 and 12 of the judgment held as under: - " 11. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the orders passed by the Tribunal and the High Court. While dealing with the controversy, the apex Court in paras 11 and 12 of the judgment held as under: - " 11. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the orders passed by the Tribunal and the High Court. It is not in dispute that the deceased was getting an mount of Rs.26,924/- as monthly salary and Rs.11,140/- was being deducted under various heads such as GPF, House Rent, G.I.S. and Income Tax. After taking into account these deductions, the Tribunal arrived at a conclusion that the net salary of the deceased is Rs.15,784/- and warded a total compensation of Rs.10,25,176/-, including Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.10,000/= towards mental agony. The High Court did not interfere with the judgment of the Tribunal. 12. This Court in Shyamwati Sharma & Ors. v. Karam Singh & Ors. (2010) 12 SCC 378 , while considering the issues of deduction of taxes, contributions etc., for arriving at the figure of net monthly income, held that "while ascertaining the income of the deceased, any deductions shown in the salary certificate as deductions towards GPF, life insurance premium, repayments of loans etc., should not be excluded from the income. This deduction towards income tax/surcharge alone should be considered to arrive at the net income of the deceased." 9. The apex Court in the case of Sunil Sharma (supra) also laid down the law in the same terms and held that what deductions are to be made and what deductions are not to be made. In paras 9 and 10 of the aforesaid judgment the apex Court held as under: - " 9. In Raghuvir Singh Matolya and other v. Hari Singh Malviya and others (2009) 15 SCC 363 : 2009 (II) DMP 157, this Court has observed that dearness allowance and house rent allowance should be included for computation of income of the deceased. 10. In the present case, Haryana Women Development Corporation Ltd. Certified that the deceased had drawn her salary for the month of July, 2006 as under: - Basic Pay Rs.7,100 D.P. Rs.3,550/- D.A. Rs.2,556/- HRA Rs. 885/- CCA Rs. 200/- Med. Allowance Rs. 250 Gross Total Rs.14,541/- Deduction EPF Rs.780/- GIS Rs. 30/- Computer Advance Rs.500/- Total Deduction Rs.1,310/- Net Payable = Rs.14,541-Rs.1,310=Rs.13,231/-. 10. The law in regard to deductions is not the res integra and stands settled on the basis of above judgements. 885/- CCA Rs. 200/- Med. Allowance Rs. 250 Gross Total Rs.14,541/- Deduction EPF Rs.780/- GIS Rs. 30/- Computer Advance Rs.500/- Total Deduction Rs.1,310/- Net Payable = Rs.14,541-Rs.1,310=Rs.13,231/-. 10. The law in regard to deductions is not the res integra and stands settled on the basis of above judgements. The income and the deductions are to be made on the same lines by including GPF, DA and other allowances as they could not have been illegally deducted. 11. Considering the over all facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the law laid down by the apex Court in the cases of Manasvi Jain (supra) and Sunil Sharma and others (supra), we find that the Tribunal has erred in calculating the income of the deceased in accordance with the law laid down by the apex Court in the aforesaid cases. 12. We, accordingly, determine the monthly take home salary of the deceased as Rs.32,854 instead of Rs.17,268/- as fixed by the Tribunal after deducting the unexplained income of the deceased of Rs.2180/- as the claimants could not have been proved the aforesaid income. 13. Accordingly, appeal is partly allowed and the judgment and award dated 15.2.2014 passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the monthly take home salary of the deceased is fixed as Rs.32,854/- instead of Rs.17,268/- as fixed by the Tribunal and fixed the compensation to the following effect : - Rs.32,854 x 12 + 30% - 1/4 x 13 = Rs.49,97,093/- 14. However, the interest, and the amount under rest of the heads as determined by the Tribunal would remain the same as in regard to them, no challenge has been made by the appellants in this appeal.