Miscellaneous Appeal No. 366 of 2012 · Patna High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Miscellaneous Appeal No.366 of 2012 ====================================================== 1. Manju Choudhary W/O Late Narendra Kumar Choudhary R/O Village And P.O.- Runisaidpur, P.S.- Runisaidpur, Distt.- Sitamarhi, At Present Residing At Mohalla- Club Road, Aurangabad, P.S. And District- Aurangabad 2. Nisant Ranjan S/O Late Narendra Kumar Choudhary R/O Village And P.O.- Runisaidpur, P.S.- Runisaidpur, Distt.- Sitamarhi, At Present Residing At Mohalla- Club Road, Aurangabad, P.S. And District- Aurangabad 3. Harsha Kumari D/O Late Narendra Kumar Choudhary R/O Village And P.O.- Runisaidpur, P.S.- Runisaidpur, Distt.- Sitamarhi, At Present Residing At Mohalla- Club Road, Aurangabad, P.S. And District- Aurangabad .... .... Appellant/s Versus 1. Sudhir Kumar Singh S/O Gaya Prasad Singh R/O Mohalla- A.P. Colony, Near Dr. Asha Singh More, Gaya, P.S. And Distt.- Gaya (Owner Of Vehicle No. Jn-01b/9549) 2. Sudhir Kumar Sinha S/O Rameshwar Pandey R/O Mohalla- A.P. Colony, Near Dr. Asha Singh More, Gaya, P.S. And Distt.- Gaya (Owner of Vehicle No. Jh-01b/9549) 3. Divisional Manager, the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Kashi Nath More, Swarajpuri Road, Gaya, P.S. And District- Gaya 4. Branch Manager, the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Pali Road, Dehri-On- Sone Dist. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Shailendra Kumar, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sanjay Singh, Adv. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL ORDER 9 02-08-2013 This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) is directed against the judgment and award dated 18.2.2012/16.03.2012 passed by the Additional District Judge, F.T.C. IV-cum-Motor Vehicle Accidents Claim Tribunal, Aurangabad in Motor Vehicle Accident Claim Case No. 36 of 2002/29 of 2010 whereby the Tribunal has been pleased to 2
Legal Reasoning
Patna High Court MA No.366 of 2012 (10) dt.02-08-2013 2 / 5 allow the claim case filed by the appellants and has directed the Insurance Company to make payment of the compensation amount which was computed at Rs. 20,18, 804/- and after reducing a sum of Rs. 50,000/- paid to the claimant under Section 140 of the Act, the Insurance Company was directed to make payments of the balance amount together with interest quantified at 6% payable from the date of the filing of the claim case until its realization. It is not in dispute that the Insurance Company has discharged its obligation under the award by making payment of the compensation amount as determined by the Tribunal. This appeal has been filed by the claimants-appellants seeking enhancement of the compensation amount inter alia on grounds that the Tribunal was not correct in reducing the provident fund component from the salary amount for the purpose of determination of the compensation.
Legal Reasoning
I have heard Mr. Shailendra Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Sanjay Singh, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company, respondent Nos. 3 and 4. Since this contest is only between the claimants and the Insurance Company hence this Court does not deem necessary to put the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 on notice who are the owners and the driver of the offending vehicle. Mr. Shailendra Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants 3 Patna High Court MA No.366 of 2012 (10) dt.02-08-2013 3 / 5 relying upon paragraph 24 of the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma reported in (2009)6 SCC 121 submitted that the computation of compensation should have been made on the basis of the gross salary received by the deceased less the income tax payable thereon but the Tribunal has misdirected itself while determining the compensation payable to the claimants on the basis of net salary of the deceased in terms of the salary slip issued by the employer Gammon India Ltd. which also includes the deduction towards provident fund. It is the contention of Mr. Kumar appearing for the appellants that the Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) has explained the term ‘actual salary’ to mean the gross salary received over the year by a person less the income tax payable thereon. It is thus sought to be submitted that the calculation made by the Tribunal on the basis of net salary of the deceased, is contrary to the Supreme Court judgment since it excludes the deduction towards provident fund. Mr. Sanjay Singh has appeared for the Insurance Company and has submitted that the endeavour of the Tribunal and the Courts have been to make compute a just compensation. With reference to the computation of the compensation amount by the Tribunal it is sought to be submitted that a sum of Rs. 20 lacs and odd has also been paid to the claimants under the award 4 Patna High Court MA No.366 of 2012 (10) dt.02-08-2013 4 / 5 and the quantification thereof by itself reflects a reasonable figure requiring no further enhancement. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the impugned award. The salary slip of the deceased is marked as Ext. 1 and reflects that the gross salary of the deceased was Rs. 32,350/- and a sum of Rs. 6,997/- was deducted towards income tax and Rs. 2,520/- by way of provident fund. Paragraph 24 of the judgment passed in the case of ‘Sarla Verma’ (supra) relied upon by Mr. Kumar in support of his contentions leaves no room for confusion that the only component that is to be excluded is income tax. It has been held that the word ‘actual salary’ would mean actual salary less tax. Thus no other deduction except income tax was required to be made from the salary of the deceased for determining the actual salary. Mr. Shailendra Kumar has also relied upon the income tax return of the deceased which was led as Ext. 8 before the Tribunal to submit that the net income of the deceased was Rs. 3,31,810/- after deductions of the tax payable of Rs. 52,618/-. He thus submits that the Tribunal ought to have made a computation of compensation taking note of the gross salary of the deceased less the income tax payable which is Rs. 3,31,810/- and not Rs. 2,73,916/- which includes the deduction towards provident fund also. It is clearly discernible that the salary computation made by 5 Patna High Court MA No.366 of 2012 (10) dt.02-08-2013 5 / 5 the Tribunal is not in tune with the Supreme Court judgment rendered in the case of Sarla Verma. In view of the discussions hereinabove, this Court without interfering with the judgment and award impugned remits the matter back to the Tribunal for computation of the compensation in terms of the gross salary received by the deceased per annum after reduction of the element of income tax payable thereon and if the claimants are found entitled to any further residual sum after making such calculation, the said amount should be paid together with interest which in the present case would be payable from the date of passing of the award until its realization. An early disposal within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order shall be appreciated. This appeal is disposed of with the observation aforementioned. Let the Lower Court Records be returned to the Tribunal concerned forthwith. (Jyoti Saran, J) Bibhash/-