High Court · 2012

MACApp. 81/2007 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE S. TALAPATRA Heard Mr. B.K. Jain, learned counsel appearing for the appellants. Also heard Mr . S.K. Medhi, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and Mr. P. Mahanta, learne d counsel for the respondent No.3. There is no representation from the responden t No.1 despite due notice from this Court. This is an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act ag 2. ainst the judgment and award dated 22.01.2007 as passed by the learned Member, M otor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kamrup, Guwahati in MAC Case No.590/2005/ MAC (Dj k) Case No.615/2005. 3. The findings as returned by the Tribunal as regards the accident that occurred on 16.03.2005 for rash and negligent driving of the vehicle beari ng registration No.ML-05/B-747 (Bus), death of one Subrata Kumar Roy and the ins urance cover of the offending vehicle by the respondent No.3 are not in dispute by either of the parties or in the appeal and as such those findings stand affir med, requiring no further appraisal. 4. ly related to the mode of assessment of the compensation by the Tribunal. 5. seriously questioned the finding of the Tribunal as excerpted hereunder : (cid:28)The P.W.1 stated that her husband was working as Enquiry-cum-Reservation Clerk at Guwahati Rly. Station & his monthly salary was Rs.11,200/-. In this connectio n the claimant submitted the salary slip of the deceased side (Ext. 1 & 2). In s upport of her statement the claimant examined the P.W.2 who stated that the L.P. C. of the deceased was issued by his vide Ext.2 wherein gross salary was shown a s Rs.11,071/- and net salary was given as Rs.6553/-. From the Ext. 2 it appears that the amount viz. Rs.2500/- & Rs.1000/- were shown deducted against G.P.F. an d P.F. advance. Thus this amount cannot be deducted from his net income for the purpose of calculation of dependency. Therefore the net income of the deceased w ill be (Rs.6553/- + Rs.2500) + Rs.1000/- = Rs.10,053/- which is rounded off as R s.10,050/- P.M. Hence the annual income of the deceased will be (Rs.10,050/- X 1 2) Rs.1,20,600/-. The income tax statement has not been given by the claimant. H ence we may deduct 20% of the annual income towards Income Tax. Thus after deduc tion of 20% of the amount we will get (Rs.1,20,600/- - Rs.24120/-) i.e. Rs.96,48 0/-. After deduction 1/3rd of the income of the deceased we will get the net ann ual loss of dependency as (1/3rd of Rs.1,20,600/- - Rs.96,480/-) = Rs.56,280/- w hich is rounded off as Rs.56,300/-. From the evidence of P.W.2 and on scrutiny of the documents marked as Ext.10 and Ext.8 the age of the deceased is found within the age group of 40 to 45 years. As such the multiplier will be 15 for the purpose of calculation of dependency. Therefore the total loss of dependency will comes to (Rs.56,300/- X 15) = Rs.8,4 4,500/-. (cid:29) The other aspects, however, have not been questioned by the appe llants. 6. Mr. Jain, learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the deduction of 20% from the annual income as income tax is highly untena ble. If the deceased was chargeable individual, the income tax would have been d educted from the source. Neither in the service record of the deceased nor in th e statement of the PW.2 it has surfaced that there was deduction of income tax. The learned counsel has further submitted that even if the deceased was charged with the income tax, by way of standard deduction and making investment in the s chemes covered by Section 80CCC of the Income Tax Act, he would not have requiri ng to pay any income tax. Apart that, Mr. B.K. Jain, learned counsel for the app ellants submitted that the deduction of 1/3rd considering the four dependants of the claimants is also not tenable. In view of Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Tran sport Corporation & Anr., as reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, the deduction for per sonal expenses should be made on 1/4th of the total income. In addition thereto, Mr. Jain has also pointed out that Sarla Verma(supra) emphasised that a person who died while in Government service or the undertakings like ’the Railways Depa rtment’ in the age group of 40-50 years, is entitled for loss of future prospect by 30% addition to the income and the Tribunal overlooked that aspect of the ma tter while assessing the compensation. 7. Refuting all contention emanating from Sarla Verma(supra), Mr. P . Mahanta, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3, National Insurance Company Ltd. submitted that at the relevant point of time, Sarla Verma(supra) w as not there. 8. On consideration of the materials placed on records and on appre ciation of the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the rival partie s, this Court is of the opinion that the compensation requires to be redrawn in the following terms : Monthly income of the deceased is assessed at Rs.10,053.00. In terms of Sarla Ve rma(supra), 30% of the said amount has to be added with the said monthly income for purpose of determining the loss of dependency. The total monthly income thus comes to Rs.13,069.00 [Rs.10,053.00 + Rs.3,016.00(30% of Rs.10,053.00)]. Thus t he annual income comes to Rs.1,56,828.00 (Rs.13,069.00 X 12). Considering 4(four ) number of dependants, the deduction as per Sarla Verma(supra) would be 1/4th. Thus, after deducting 1/4th, the sum comes to Rs.1,17,621.00. This amount would be multiplied by ’14’ for arriving at the loss of dependency. Thus, the loss of dependency is assessed at Rs.16,46,694.00. With the said sum, Rs.5,000.00 for fu neral expenses, Rs.10,000.00 for loss of consortium and Rs.5,000.00 for loss of estate be added. Thus, the total compensation comes to Rs.16,66,694.00 (rupees s ixteen lac. sixty six thousand six hundred and ninety four)only. The said sum wo uld carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition til l the payment is made. 9. The respondent No.3, National Insurance Company Ltd., insurer of the offending vehicle No.ML-05/B-7471 (Bus) is directed to pay the entire award ed sum within 2(two) months from today in the Tribunal after deducting the sum, if any, has been paid by now. It is further directed that out of the awarded sum, Rs.3,00,000/ -(rupees three lac.) each be kept in the term deposits in the name of the minor claimants namely, (1)Smt. Riya Roy and (2)Sri Subhajit Roy in a Nationalised Ban k till they attain majority and another sum of Rs.4,00,000/-(rupees four lac.) b e paid to the claimant-respondent No.4 namely, Smt. Gita Roy and the remaining a mount shall be allowed to be withdrawn by the claimant-appellant namely, Smt. Il a Roy from the Tribunal on proper identification. 10. ordingly is disposed of. The impugned judgment and award thus stands modified. 11. Send down the LCRs forthwith. For the reasons as aforesaid, this appeal stands allowed and acc