Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 1130 (KAR)

New India Assurance Co Ltd. v. B. S. Jamuna

2020-06-18

K.NATARAJAN

body2020
JUDGMENT K Natarajan, J. - This appeal is preferred by the appellant-Insurance Company assailing the judgment and award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') in M.V.C. No.1750 of 2010, dated 6-9-2011. 2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company. 3. The status of the parties before the Tribunal is retained for the sake of convenience. 4. Claimant Nos.1 and 2 (respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein) filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation of Rs.40,46,500/- inter alia contending that, on 22-1-2010, the deceased-Guthala Gowda, husband of the first claimant, along with his colleagues was traveling in a taxi car, bearing Registration No.KA-42 2883, from Bengaluru to Hospet. At about 11:00 p.m., they stopped the car in front of Green Land Hotel of Parthahalli Village, Hiriyur Taluk, on NH-4 for dinner, at that time, a container lorry, bearing Registration No.MH-12 CH-5033, came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the car from behind. Due to which, the inmates of the car suffered injuries and the said Guthala Gowda succumbed to the injuries on the way to the Hospital. The claimants have contended that the deceased was working as a Supervisor at Veterinary Hospital and was drawing a salary of Rs.17,208/- per month. Due to untimely death, the claimants have lost their bread earner. Hence, prayed for granting compensation. 5. The Insurance Company appeared through its counsel and filed objections by denying the averments made in the claim petition as false. However, it has admitted the issuance of insurance policy. Hence, prayed for dismissing the claim petition. 6. Respondent No.2-owner remained absent and placed ex-parte. 7. Based upon the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues: 1. "Whether the petitioner proves that the death of Sri Guthala Gowda on 22.1.2010 at about 11.00 p.m., near Green Land Hotel, Parthahalli village, Hiriyur taluk, Chitradurga district, NH-4, was due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing No.MH 12 CH 5033 by its driver? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, for what amount and from whom? 3. What order or award?" 8. In order to substantiate the contentions, claimant No.1 examined herself as P.W.1 and got marked 13 documents. However, the Insurance Company has not led any evidence. 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, for what amount and from whom? 3. What order or award?" 8. In order to substantiate the contentions, claimant No.1 examined herself as P.W.1 and got marked 13 documents. However, the Insurance Company has not led any evidence. After hearing the arguments and considering the evidence on record, the Tribunal answered issue No.1 in the affirmative and issue No.2 partly in the affirmative and allowed the claim petition in part by awarding compensation of Rs.23,71,428/-. Questioning the quantum of compensation, the Insurance Company preferred this appeal. 9. Sri C.R. Ravishankar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company, has vehemently contended that the Tribunal has committed error in not deducting Professional Tax and also the Income Tax while computing the annual income of the deceased. Therefore, the Tribunal has arrived at a wrong conclusion and awarded excess compensation, which requires reduction in the hands of this Court and hence, prayed for allowing the appeal. 10. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 is not present before the Court. 11. Upon hearing the arguments and on perusal of the record, the point that arises for consideration is; "Whether the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal calls for any interference?" 12. On perusal of the record, the death of Guthala Gowda in the accident is not disputed. He was working as a Supervisor at Veterinary Hospital, Ramanagar, and earning Rs.17,208/- per month is also not disputed. The only contention of the Insurance Company is that the Tribunal while calculating the annual income, it has not deducted the Professional Tax, which is Rs.200/- per month and Income Tax at the rate of 10% per annum. On perusal of the income of the deceased, the Tribunal has calculated the income of the deceased based upon the Salary Confirmation Letter of the deceased, marked as Ex.P.6, which shows that the deceased Guthala Gowda was earning Rs.17,208/- per month. On perusal of Ex.P.6, it is a Salary Certificate issued by the Assistant Director of Veterinary Hospital, Ramanagar. It is clearly mentioned that there is no Professional Tax applicable to the deceased and it has stated as 'Nil'. The other deductions are also stated as 'Nil'. The deductions were GPF, KGID, LIC and towards group insurance policy. There is no other deduction shown in the Salary Certificate. It is clearly mentioned that there is no Professional Tax applicable to the deceased and it has stated as 'Nil'. The other deductions are also stated as 'Nil'. The deductions were GPF, KGID, LIC and towards group insurance policy. There is no other deduction shown in the Salary Certificate. Therefore, the contention of the Insurance Company cannot be acceptable that the Professional Tax of Rs.200/- per month requires to be deducted. That apart, even if we calculate Rs.200/- per month towards Professional Tax, it comes to Rs.2,400/- annually. If the salary of the deceased is calculated at Rs.17,208/- per month, it comes to Rs.2,06,496/- annually. Therefore, if the annual income is less than Rs.2,50,000/-, there will be no tax payable by an assessee and the assessee is entitled for exemption of Rs.1 lakh under Section 80 of the Income Tax Act. Even if 30% of the salary of the deceased is added towards 'loss of future prospects', it comes to Rs.22,370/- per month (Rs.17,208 x 30% = 5,162 + 17,208) and it comes to 2,68,440/- annually. Even then, the deceased does not come under the category of individual Income Taxpayer. Therefore, the Tribunal has not committed any error in not deducting any Income Tax or Professional Tax while computing the income of the deceased. 13. That apart, the Tribunal has awarded only Rs.45,000/- towards 'conventional heads' including Rs.10,000/- towards 'consortium', which is less than the conventional amount payable as per the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 . In the said case, it has held that conventional heads shall be Rs.70,000/-. Merely Rs.2,400/- towards Professional Tax was not deducted that itself is not a ground to interfere with the reasons or findings of the Tribunal. Therefore, the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal does not call for interference. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the Tribunal.