| |
CDJ 2009 MHC 3863
|
| Court : Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court |
| Case No : C.M.A.(MD) No. 56 of 2009 & M.P.(MD).No. 1 of 2009 |
| Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. KIRUBAKARAN |
| Parties : The Divisional Manager, The New India Assurance Co., Ltd. Versus T. Chelladurai & Others |
| Appearing Advocates : For the Appellant: B. Vijay Karthikeyan, Advocate. For the Respondents: K. Mahendran, Advocate. |
| Date of Judgment : 14-07-2009 |
| Head Note :- |
Motor Vehicles Act - Section 173 - Civil Procedure Code - Order 41 Rule 33 - Claim made before the Tribunal for fatal accident of one Mr. Ragavendran, a final year B.E., (Automobile Engineering) student, who met with an accident and died on the spot due to multiple injuries - compensation was claimed for a sum Rs.10,00,000/- - appellant/Insurance Company pleaded that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the fourth respondent - On appreciation of pleadings and evidence and the exhibits marked, Tribunal found that the driver of the fourth respondent was responsible for the accident and awarded compensation of Rs.5,85,000/- - award is being challenged before this Court in this appeal. Court held – future prospects of the deceased is one of the vital aspects to be considered, while arriving at the loss of income - therefore, this Court fixes the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.7,000/- per month by invoking Order 41 Rule 33 of C.P.C. – 1/3rd deduction is normal and the appellants contention that the deceased was a bachelor and 50% of the income should be deducted towards his personal and living expenses cannot be considered - there is no statutory mandate in the Motor Vehicles Act that 50% should be deducted for the death of the bachelor - deceased was aged about 22 years and the age of the mother was 43 years - Tribunal rightly took the age of the mother 43 years and adopted multiplier of '15' as per the schedule and the same cannot be found fault with - 10% deduction has to be made from the loss of income for the tax payable - award of the Tribunal is modified and award of Rs.5,85,000/- is enhanced to Rs.8,01,000, which will bear interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum - appeal disposed of.
Cases Referred:
Sarala Verma and Others -Vs- Delhi Transport Corporation and [(2009) 6 SCC 121 = 2009 ACJ 1298]
Syed Basheer Ahamed and Others -Vs- Mohammed Jameel and another [(2009) 2 SCC 225]
TATA AIG General Insurance Company Ltd., -Vs- Balakrishna Ready and five Others [2009 (1) TANMAC 205]
National Insurance Co. Ltd., -Vs- T.A. Nicholas and two Others [2009 (1) TN MAC 373]
Bijoy Kumar Durga -Vs- Bidya Dhar Dutta and Others [(2006) 3 SCC 242]
R.K. Mallik and another -Vs- Kiran Pal and another [2009 (8) Scale 451]
General Manager, Kerala, State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum -Vs- Susamma Thomas and Others [(1994) 2 SCC 176]
Sarala Dixit (Smt.) and another -Vs- Balwant Yadav and Others [(1996) 3 SCC 179]
Latha Wadhva and others -Vs- State of Bihar and Others [(2001) 8 SCC 197]
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., -Vs- Deo Patodi and Others [2009 (8) Scale 194]
Fakeerappa and another -Vs- Karnataka Cement Pipe Factory and Others [(2004) 2 SCC 473]
Bilkish -Vs- United India Insurance Company Ltd., and another [(2008) 4 SCC 259]
Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation -Vs- Sarojamma and another [(2008) 5 SCC 142]
Abati Bezbaruah -Vs- Dy. Director General, Geological Survey of India and another [(2003) 3 SCC 148]
Rani Gupta and Others -Vs- United India Insurance Company Ltd., and others [2009 (5) Scale 439]
National Insurance Company Ltd., -Vs- Smt. Saroj and Others [2009 (8) Scale 188]
U.P. Transport Corporation v. Trilokchand [1996 (4) SCC 362]
National Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Indira Srivastava and Others [(2008) 2 SCC 763]
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Ram Prasad Varma [2009 (1) TNMAC 134]
Comparative Citations:
2009 (4) CTC 469, 2010 (1) MLJ 1442, 2010 (3) ACC 592, 2009 (2) TNMAC 481,
|
| Judgment :- |
|
(Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, against the Decree and Judgment dated 24.07.2008 made in M.C.O.P.No.1630 of 2006 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal ( Additional District and Sessions Judge, FTC No.3), Madurai.)
1. This appeal has been preferred by the Insurance Company against the award of a sum of Rs. 5,85,000 as against the claim of Rs. 10,00,000 by the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 claimants.
Factual matrix:
2. The case of respondents-claimants before Tribunal was that one C. Ragavendran, a final year B.E. (Automobile Engineering) student, met with an accident on 13.4.2006 and died on the spot due to multiple injuries.
3. According to the claimants, deceased died when he was riding the motor cycle from east to west in Melur-Trichy National Highway and the respondent No. 4 driver drove the lorry in a rash and negligent manner from west to east and came to the wrong side and dashed against the motor cycle in the southern side of the road and then went off the road and dashed against Tamarind tree in the southern side of the road and thereby the deceased C. Ragavendran thrown out from the motor cycle and died on the way to hospital. According to the claimants, the deceased was a final year B.E. (Automobile Engineering) student and had a potential of earning more and though a sum of Rs. 6,850 was calculated as compensation and they restricted their claim to Rs. 10,00.000.
4. The appellant Insurance Company contested the claim petition by filing detailed counter statement and in para 3 of the counter statement it was pleaded that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the respondent No. 4. On the side of the claimants, three witnesses, namely, PW 1 to PW 3, were examined and the following documents were marked as follows:
Exh. P1—Certified copy of F.I.R.
Exh. P2—Certified copy of post-mortem certificate.
Exh. P3—Certified copy of charge-sheet.
Exh. P4—Certified copy of judgment passed in C.C. No. 252 of 2006.
Exh. P5—Legal heirship certificate issued by Tahsildar, Melur.
Exh. P6—Authorisation letter issued by MAVMM Engineering College, Madurai.
Exh. P7—Certificate issued by MAVMM Engineering College.
Exh. P8—Identity card of the deceased Ragavendran.
5. On the side of the appellant, no one was examined and no documents were marked. One Court witness, namely, CW 1 was examined and three documents were marked as Exhs. X1 to X3 and the same is held as follows:
Exh. X1—Particulars of driving licence letter given by the Motor Vehicles Inspector Gr. 1.
Exh. X2—Photocopy extract of driving licence issued to the deceased compared with the original.
Exh. X3—Photocopy of the office copy of driving licence extracted from the Licence Register.
Findings of the Tribunal:
6. On appreciation of pleadings and evidence and the exhibits marked before it, the Tribunal found that the driver of the respondent No. 4 was responsible for the accident. The reasoning was elaborately dealt with by the Tribunal in para 8 of the award. The Tribunal found that deceased, Ragavendran was holding proper licence to ride the two-wheeler based on Exhs. X1 to X3. For coming to the conclusion that the driver of the respondent No. 4 alone was responsible for the accident, the Tribunal relied upon the testimony of PW 1.
7. Apart from that Tribunal considered Exh. P1—F.I.R. and Exh. P3—charge-sheet filed against the lorry driver and Exh. P4—the judgment passed in C.C. No. 252 of 2006, in which, the driver of respondent No. 4 was convicted for the offence of rash and negligent driving. Based on the evidence and the exhibit as stated above, the Tribunal found that respondent No. 4 driver was responsible for the accident.
Award of the Tribunal:
8. The Tribunal awarded compensation as follows:
| Loss of income | Rs. | 5,40,000 | | Loss of love and affection for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 | Rs. | 30,000 | | Loss of love and affection for respondent No. 3 | Rs. | 10,000 | | Funeral expenses | Rs. | 5,000 | | Total: | Rs. | 5,85,000 |
The aforesaid award is being challenged before this Court in this appeal.
Negligence:
9. There is no challenge by appellant with regard to the negligence part. Even otherwise, the Tribunal after appreciating the pleading, evidence on record correctly found that the driver of the insured vehicle alone was responsible for the accident and, therefore, the finding of the Tribunal does not warrant any inference and the same is confirmed.
Quantum:
10. As far as the quantum is concerned, the Counsel for the appellant attacked the award on three grounds:
(1) That the deceased was an engineering college student and a non-earning member and the Tribunal wrongly fixed the monthly income at Rs. 4,500 and hence the finding in this regard has to interfered with.
(2) The multiplier adopted by the Tribunal is contrary to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Laxman Iyer, III (2003) ACC 551 (SC)=VI (2003) SLT 706=2004 ACJ 53 (SC).
(3) The Tribunal ought to have deducted 50 per cent from the monthly income of the deceased towards his personal expenses as the deceased was a bachelor.
11. In support of the above submissions, he relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, III (2009) ACC 708 (SC)=VI (2009) SLT 663=162 (2009) DLT 278 (SC)=2009 ACJ 1298 (SC). He also further relied upon another judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in Syed Basheer Ahamed v. Mohd. Jameel, I (2009) ACC 29 (SC)=2009 ACJ 690 (SC).
12. Learned Counsel further relied upon another judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in TATA AIG General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Balakrishna Reddy, 2009 (1) TNMAC 205, in the said judgment for the death of 19 years old engineering student, this Court fixed at Rs. 3,000 as his monthly income and the same amount should be fixed in this case also.
13. On the other hand, Mr. Mahendran, the learned Counsel for the respondents-claimants supported the award of Claims Tribunal contending that the deceased was 22 years final year B.E. student and he was a bright student and having the potential of earning more and the future prospects are more. He relied upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court passed in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. T.A. Nicholas, 2009 (1) TNMAC 373. In that case, 22 years old engineering student suffered grievous injuries in the right leg. For loss of earning capacity, the Tribunal fixed notional income of Rs. 10,000 per month and the same was affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court. Relying upon the said judgment, in fact, learned Counsel pleaded for enhancement.
14. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and the respondents.
Income:
15. It is not in dispute, the deceased was a final year student in Automobile Engineering. In fact, the said fact was proved by PW 3 and the letter given by the College Principal, Exh. P6, Exh. P7 and Exh. P8. To arrive at the income, the Tribunal gave its reasoning in para 10 of the award and the same is extracted as follows:
“The deceased Ragavendran being an engineering college student at the time of accident he was not earning any income at that time. But as an engineering college student he has got the latent ability, talent and potential to earn substantially in future as an engineering student soon after the completion of his course. Though there is no concrete evidence to prove his monthly income and though he was not earning at the time of the accident. Considering that he was studying a professional course and as a would be engineer he would have great prospect to earn substantially, this Tribunal feels that it would be just and fair compensation if the monthly income of the deceased is fixed at Rs. 4,500.”
16. The aforesaid reasoning given by the Tribunal would show that the prospects of the deceased could be more in case of his completion of the engineering course. However, the Tribunal did not take into the future prospects of the deceased in proper manner. The future prospects of an engineer is more as compared to other fields. The engineers are more in demand in any part of the world. In this electronic era, the service of the engineers are more required. In a number of judgments, the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as this Court, held that in arriving at income the future prospects of the deceased should be taken into consideration.
17. In Bijoy Kumar Dugar v. Bidyadhar Dutta, II (2006) ACC 36 (SC)=II (2006) SLT 651=2006 ACJ 1058 (SC), while arriving at loss of income, it was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the future prospects has to be considered. In a recent judgment passed in R.K. Malik v. Kiran Pal, II (2009) ACC 705 (SC)=IV (2009) SLT 146=2007 ACJ 2010 (SC), the Supreme Court while awarding compensation to the parents for the death of school children, held that:
“(31) ... It is well settled legal principles that in addition to awarding the compensation for pecuniary losses, compensation must also be granted with regard to the future prospects of the children. It is incumbent upon the Court to consider the said aspect while awarding compensation...”
18. In the aforesaid R.K. Malik’s case, 2009 ACJ 2010 (SC), the Hon’ble Supreme Court took into consideration, the earlier decision passed by the Apex Court passed in General Manager, Kerala State Road Trans. Corpn. v. Susamma Thomas, I (1994) ACC 346 (SC)=1994 ACJ 1 (SC), Sarla Dixit v. Balwant Yadav, I (2004) ACC 396 (SC)=1996 ACJ 581 (SC), Lata Wadhwa v. State of Bihar, II (2001) ACC 316 (SC)=V (2001) SLT 826=2001 ACJ 1735 (SC), and held that the future prospects of the deceased is one of the vital aspects to be considered by the Tribunal, while arriving at the loss of income. In the said case, for the death of school children, the Tribunal awarded Rs. 1,55,000 to the dependants of the children between the age group of 10 and 15 years and Rs. 1,65,000 between 15 and 18 years and Rs. 1,30,000 to Rs. 1,31,000 for the death of three children below 10 years. On appeal, the High Court enhanced the compensation in all cases by Rs. 75,000. On appeal by the claimants, the Hon’ble Apex Court awarded a sum of Rs. 75,000 more as additional compensation for future prospects of the children. In arriving at the decision, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said case, elaborately dealt with the cases already decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in detail.
19. As far as this case is concerned proper reasoning was given by the Tribunal to arrive at monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 4,500. Even in these days, a coolie is considered to be earning about Rs. 3,000 to Rs. 5,000. The automobile engineer’s prospects is more when there are more automobile industries in this part of India.
20. The judgment of the Division Bench of this Court passed in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. T.A. Nicholas, 2009 (1) TNMAC 373 (supra), relied on by Mr. K. Mahendran, learned Counsel for the claimants, spoke about the notional income at Rs. 10,000 per month by the Tribunal, which was confirmed in appeal by this Court. In para 8 of the said judgment, it has been observed as follows:
“(8) We now come to the loss of his earning capacity or permanent disability. There is no evidence for this except the statement of the claimant, PW 1. But we do not think that it is an unreasonable figure, considering his qualification. Therefore, we will accept the figure as fixed by the Tribunal, i.e., Rs. 10,000 per month.”
21. Based on the judgment and considering his position as student studying final year of B.E. (Automobile Engineering), this Court could fix the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 10,000. There was no contra evidence before the Tribunal to rebut the evidence adduced by the claimants. However, in the absence of any appeal by the claimants, such an exorbitant amount need not be fixed. Therefore, this Court fixes the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 7,000. This exercise is being done by this Court considering the facts and circumstances of the case by invoking Order 41, Rule 33 of Civil Procedure Code.
22. The case relied on by the learned Counsel for the appellant TATA AIG General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Balakrishna Reddy, 2009 (1) TNMAC 205 (supra), speaks about the death of engineering college student, aged about 19 years, wherein composite negligence on the part of car driver as well as the deceased was arrived at and there was no reasoning given for fixing the monthly income at Rs. 3,000 and it only confirmed the notional income adopted by the Tribunal. It is also understood from the judgment, no future prospects of the deceased was taken into consideration. The other judgment relied upon by the learned Counsel for the appellant, Syed Basheer Ahamed v. Mohd. Jameel, I (2009) ACC 29 (SC)=2009 ACJ 690 (SC) (supra), wherein a businessman died in the accident and his monthly income was fixed at Rs 7 ,000 by the Tribunal and the same was reduced to Rs. 4,000 based upor the entries in the current bank account of the deceased.
23. The case on hand is relating to the death of non-earning member namely, the final year B.E. (Automobile Engineering) student, whose future prospects are more compared to a businessman. In any event, the prospects of an engineering student cannot be compared with a businessman especially when there are more automobile industries in India.
24. As stated above, the prospects of the engineering student is more compared to any other field as found by this Court, the income of the deceased student is fixed at Rs. 7,000 per month.
Deduction towards personal expenses:
25. Learned Counsel for the appellant assailed the Tribunal’s award for non-deduction of 50 per cent of income towards personal expenses as the deceased was bachelor. Learned Counsel for the appellant strenuously argued relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court passed in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, III (2009) ACC 708 (SC)=VI (2009) SLT 663=162 (2009) DLT 278 (SC)=2009 ACJ 1298 (SC) (supra). In that case, the deceased was a scientist in Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) earning a monthly salary of Rs. 3,402 and other benefits. While dealing with deduction, the Hon’ble Supreme Court gave the following guidelines for deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased. The paras 14 and 15 of the judgment are extracted as follows:
“(14) Though in some cases the deduction to be made towards personal and living expenses is calculated on the basis of units indicated in Trilok Chandra‘s case, I (1996) ACC 592 (SC)=1996 ACJ 831 (SC), the general practice is to apply standardized deductions. Having considered several subsequent decisions of this Court, we are of the view that where the deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased should be one-third (1/3rd) where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3; one-fourth (1/4th) where the number of dependent family members is 4 to 6; and one-fifth (1/5th) where the number of the dependent family members exceed six.
(15) Where the deceased was a bachelor and the claimants are the parents, the deduction follows a different principle. In regard to bachelors, normally 50 per cent is deducted as personal and living expenses, because it is assumed that a bachelor would tend to spend more on himself. Even otherwise, there is also the possibility of his getting married in a short time, in which event the contribution to the parents(s) and siblings is likely to be cut drastically. Further subject to evidence to the contrary, the father is likely to have his own income and will not be considered as a dependant the mother alone will be considered as a dependant. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, brothers and sisters will not be considered as dependants, because they will either be independent and earning, or married, or be dependent on the father. Thus even if the deceased is survived by parents and siblings, only the mother would be considered to be a dependent and 50 per cent would be treated as the personal and living expenses of the bachelor and 50 per cent as the contribution to the family. However, where family of the bachelor is large and dependent on the income of the deceased, as in a case where he has a widowed mother and large number of younger non-earning sisters or brothers, his personal and living expenses may be restricted to one-third and contribution to the family will be taken as two-third.”
26. Relying upon the said judgment, the learned Counsel for the appellant contended that the deceased in this case was a bachelor and 50 per cent of the income should be deducted towards his personal and living expenses, whereas the Tribunal deducted only 1/3rd and hence contended that 50 per cent should be deducted.
27. It has been held by a number of judgments by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that 1/3rd amount only has to be deducted towards personal income whereas only in the case of Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, III (2009) ACC 708 (SC)=VI (2009) SLT 663=162 (2009) DLT 278 (SC)=2009 ACJ 1298 (SC) (supra), and another judgment in Syed Basheer Ahamed v. Mohd. Jameel, I (2009) ACC 29 (SC)=2009 ACJ 690 (SC) (supra), 50 per cent of the income was ordered to be deducted for the death of the bachelor.
28. In a recent Supreme Court judgment passed in Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Deo Patodi, II (2009) ACC 875 (SC)=2009 ACJ 2359 (SC), it was held that deduction of 1/3rd for personal expenses is the ordinary rule in India. In Fakeerappa v. Karnataka Cement Pipe Factory, I (2004) ACC 494 (SC)=II (2004) SLT 99=2004 ACJ 699 (SC), the Hon’ble Apex Court deducted only 1/3rd towards personal expenses from the income of the bachelor. Similar is the view taken by the Hon’ble Apex. Court in Bilkish v. United India Insurance Company Ltd., II (2008) ACC 825 (SC)=IV (2008) SLT 717=II (2008) CPJ 37 (SC)=2008 ACJ 1357 (SC), and Managing Director, Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corpn. v. Sarojamma, II (2009) ACC 850 (SC)=2008 ACJ 1619 (SC).
29. The aforesaid ratio adopted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a number of cases would demonstrate the normal rule in India is deduction of 1/3rd amount from monthly income towards personal expenses. This case is not exceptional case where 50 per cent has to be deducted. There is no statutory mandate in the Motor Vehicles Act that 50 per cent should be deducted for the death of the bachelor. On the other hand, in some of the cases, it is noticed that no amount was deducted towards personal expenses. However, to strike a fine balance, 1/3rd deduction is the normal rule and the Tribunal rightly deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses and it does not warrant any interference by this Court.
Multiplier:
30. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted, taking into consideration of the age of the mother, namely 43 years, the Tribunal adopted multiplier of ‘15’. The learned Counsel relying upon the judgment of Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Laxman Iyer, III (2003) ACC 551 (SC)=VI (2003) SLT 706=2004 ACJ 53 (SC) (supra), wherein it was held that ‘10’ is the appropriate multiplier, submitted that same multiplier has to be adopted in this case.
31. A perusal of the Second Schedule appended to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 would reveal that for the age of 22 years, the proper multiplier is ‘17’ and for the age of 43 years, the multiplier is ‘15’. In this case, the deceased was aged about 22 years and the age of the mother was 43 years. The Tribunal rightly took the age of the mother 43 years and adopted multiplier of ‘15’ as per the Schedule and the same cannot be found fault with.
32. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in a number of judgments held, the Second Schedule appended to the Motor Vehicles Act should not ordinarily be deviated from. In Abati Bezbaruahv. Dy. Director General, Geological Survey of India, I (2003) ACC 352 (SC)=II (2003) SLT 65=2003 ACJ 680 (SC), the Supreme Court held that the Second Schedule should not ordinarily be deviated and in Rani Gupta v. United India Insurance Company Ltd., II (2009) ACC 333 (SC)=III (2009) SLT 615=2009 ACJ 1605 (SC), it was held that multiplier specified in the Second Schedule should be taken as guideline and in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Saroj, III (2009) ACC 1 (SC)=IV (2009) SLT 654=2009 ACJ 2161 (SC), it was held that appropriate multiplier from the Second Schedule has to be followed. In U.P. State Road Trans. Corpn. v. Trilok Chandra, I (1996) ACC 592 (SC)=1996 ACJ 831 (SC), the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the Second Schedule suffers from many defects and it is only guide not reckoner. However, as on date, the Second Schedule is appended to the Motor Vehicles Act and forms part of the statute and no amendment has been made or it has been deleted or set aside by any of the Courts.
33. As long as the Second Schedule remains with this Motor Vehicles Act,the same, as far as possible has to be followed, depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case.
34. In this case, no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances has been made out by the appellant to deviate from the Second Schedule. Hence, Second Schedule was properly taken into consideration and suitable multiplier was adopted by the Tribunal. Hence, the multiplier adopted by the Tribunal is confirmed.
35. Learned Counsel for the appellant found fault with the Tribunal for awarding a sum of Rs. 15,000 for each of the parents towards loss of love and affection and Rs. 10,000 for the loss of love and affection of the sister stating that it is on the higher side. The facts of the case would reveal that the family had one male child who was miserably lost in the accident. To put it in nutshell, there is no male descendant for the family. The time took away the child mercilessly by the cruel accident and no amount of money could compensate the loss of the child especially the only male child. The same cannot be compensated by any amount of money. Though, the amount given towards loss of love and affection, namely, Rs. 40,000 for three claimants, in the opinion of this Court is very low the amount awarded by the Tribunal is confirmed by considering ‘just compensation’ under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Tax deduction:
36. Though the Tribunal did not deduct any amount towards tax deduction while arriving at the compensation, the same is required to be considered by this Court. In National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Indira Srivastava, I (2008) ACC 162 (SC)=I (2008) SLT 73=I (2008) CPJ 24 (SC)=2008 ACJ 614 (SC), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the tax payable has to be deducted from the compensation. The same principle was reiterated in Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Ram Prasad Varma, I (2009) ACC 357 (SC)=I (2009) SLT 658=2009 ACJ 1006 (SC). Based on the above judgments, 10 per cent deduction has to be made from the loss of income.
Rs. 8,40,000 x 10/100=Rs. 84,000
Rs. 8,40,000 - Rs. 84,000=Rs. 7,56,000
Net loss of income=Rs. 7,56,000
37. The Tribunal rightly awarded interest at the rate of 7.5 per cent and the same is confirmed.
38. Hence, the award of the Tribunal is modified as follows:
| Loss of income | | | | (Rs. 7,000 x 12 x 15 x 1/3rd)=Rs. 8,40,000 - Rs. 84.000 | Rs. | 7,56.000 | | Net loss of income | Rs. | 7,56,000 | | Loss of love and affection | Rs. | 40,000 | | Funeral expenses | Rs. | 5,000 | | Total: | Rs. | 8,01,000 |
39. Thus the award of Rs. 5,85,000 is enhanced to Rs. 8,01,000 which will bear interest at the rate of 7.5 per cent per annum and the appeal is disposed of.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.
|
| |
