United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Smt. Puja Namdeo Ghuge

FA-3593-19 and FA-888-2003.odtANDFIRST APPEAL NO.888 OF 20231. Smt. Puja Namdeo GhugeAge – 20 years, Occup – Household,R/o Ghotan, Taq – Shevgaon, Dist – Ahmednagar2.Kum. Praniti Namdeo GhugeAge – 11 months, occup - ,R/o Ghotan, Taq – Shevgaon, Dist – Ahmednagar.[U G of the Appellant No.1 ]3.Smt. Pushpabai Jalindar GhugeAge – 50 years, occup – Nil,R/o Ghotan, Taq – Shevgaon, Dist – Ahmednagar.…. Appellants[Orig. Claimants]VERSUS1.United India Insurance Company Ltd. Through its Manager, Osmanpura, Aurangabad2.Rameshwar Dadasaheb ShelkeAge – 34 years, Occup – Driver,R/o Karhe Takali, Taq Shevgaon, Dist – Ahmednagar3.Smt. Dwarka Kakasaheb MogalAge – Major, Occup – Owner,R/o Nilajgaon, Taq – Paithan, Dist. - Aurangabad4.Shri. Kakasaheb Janardhan Mogal [died][Through Legal heir, i.e. respon. No.3]…..Respondents [Orig. Respondents]…..Appearance : -Mr. R. B. Dhakane, Advocate for the AppellantsMr. S. R. Bodade, Advocate for Respondent No.1Mr. M. B. Ubale, Advocate for Respondent Nos.2 and 3…..2 FA-3593-19 and FA-888-2003.odtCORAM:NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.RESERVED ON:02/04/2025PRONOUNCED ON: 21/04/2025COMMON JUDGMENT :- 1. Both the Appeals are filed under Section 173 of the MotorVehicles Act, 1988 [hereinafter referred to as the ‘M.V. Act’]. TheFirst Appeal No.3593/2019 is filed by the Insurance Companyagainst the Judgment and Order / Award dated 27/03/2019, passedby the learned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Aurangabad,[hereinafter referred to as the ‘learned Tribunal’] in the MotorAccident Claim Petition [For short the ‘MACP’] No.407/2018,partly allowing the MACP and directing the Insurance Company, Owner and Driver to pay the compensation of Rs.77,28,789/-[Rupees Seventy Seven Lakhs Twenty Eight Thousand SevenHundred Eighty Nine Only], jointly and severally to the Claimantswith interest @ 9% from the date of filing of the Claim Petition tillits realization. The First Appeal No.888/2023 is filed by theClaimants for enhance compensation. Common submission areadvanced by both the sides. Hence, both the Appeals are decidedby this Common Judgment. The parties are referred as per theirnomenclature / position in the MACP.2.The facts giving rise to the present Appeals are as under :-[I] The Claimants filed the above referred MACP before thelearned Tribunal with the contention that, they were the widow,3 FA-3593-19 and FA-888-2003.odtminor daughter and mother, respectively of Namdeo JalindarGhuge [hereinafter referred to as the ‘Deceased’]. They wereresident of Village Ghotan, Taluka Shevgaon, District Ahmednagar. The Deceased was working in the Central Reserve Police Force[hereinafter referred to as ‘CRPF’] atSrinagar, Jammu andKashmir, having monthly salary of Rs.42,619/-. On 12/05/2018,when the Deceased and hisfriend were returning to the Village ona motorcycle from Paithan to Shevgaon road in moderate speedfrom the correctside of the road and reached near Open Prison, Paithan around 04:30 p.m., a Tractor bearing No. MH-20-CR-4863,which was coming from the opposite direction in a high speed andin rash and negligent manner, gave dash to the motorcycle, onwhich, the Deceased and his friend were travelling. Due to the saidmotor vehicular Accident, the Deceased and his friend succumbedto the injuries. The Accident was reported to the Paithan PoliceStation and Crime No.165/2018 came to be registered for theoffence punishable under Sections 279, 304-A of the Indian PenalCode, 1860 [hereinafter referred to as ‘I.P.C’] and Section 134 /177of the M.V. Act against the Driver of said Tractor. [II] The Claimants being the Dependents/Legal Representativesof the Deceased, claimed the compensation of Rs.1,00,00,000/-[Rupees One Crore] against the Insurance Company, the Owner andthe Driver of the said Tractor. The MACP was resisted / contestedby the Insurance Company by filing Written Statement at Exhibit–20 and by the Owner and Driver of the said Tractor by filing jointWritten Statement at Exhibit–27. They denied the case ofClaimants put-forth before the learned Tribunal. They denied theinvolvement of the said Tractor in the Accident on the ground that, the Crime was registered against the unknown vehicle. Theydenied the rash and negligent driving of the said Tractor. Theydenied the income of Deceased and prayed to dismiss the MACP. 4 FA-3593-19 and FA-888-2003.odt[III] The learned Tribunal framed the issues at Exhibit–18. Insupport of the MACP, the widow of Deceased examined herself byfiling Evidence Affidavit at Exhibit – 23. She was cross- xamined bythe learned Advocate for the Insurance Company and the learnedAdvocate for the Owner and Driver of the said Tractor. TheClaimants brought on record the Police Papers, the copies ofRegistration Certificate and Insurance Certificate of the Tractorand the copy of Driving Licence of the Tractor Driver. TheClaimants examined the person from the Office of Director, CRPF,Delhi as Witness No.2 at Exhibit – 46 in respect of Service details ofthe Deceased, who was cross-examined by the learned Advocate forthe Insurance Company. The copies of Service Papers of theDeceased were brought on record. The learned Tribunal decidedthe MACP by the impugned Judgment and Award. 3.Heard the learned Advocate for the Insurance Company, thelearned Advocate for the Claimants and the learned Advocate forthe Owner and Driver of the said Tractor. Perused the evidenceavailable on record.4.It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the InsuranceCompany that, the widow of Deceased was not the eyewitness to theAccident and the Claimants did not examine the eyewitness to theAccident. The involvement of the said Tractor, which was insuredwith the Insurance Company, was in dispute. The Report waslodged against the unknown vehicle. It was a hit and run case. TheService Papers brought on record by the witness examined by theClaimants, were not the Original and Certificate under Section 655 FA-3593-19 and FA-888-2003.odt[B] of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [hereinafter referred to as‘the Evidence Act’] was not brought on record. The Claimantsreceived the amount from the Employer from the Risk Fund, GISand Leave Encashment, and that amount ought to have beenconsidered and deducted by the learned Tribunal from thecompensation amount. Witness No.2 examined by the Claimantswas not authorized to depose before the learned Tribunal. The LastPay Certificate of the Deceased was of the period after the deathand, therefore, it will not be helpful to the Claimants. The Deceasedwas not holding a valid and effective Driving Licence and was notwearing helmet at the time of Accident, as required under theprovisions of the M.V Act and, therefore, the Deceased hadcontributed to the Accident. The witnesses, whose statementswere recorded by the Police, were the interested witnesses. Theinterest awarded by the learned Tribunal was on higher side. Thedefence of the Insurance Company was curtailed by not allowingthe examination of the Investigating Officer. Hence, the Appealfiled by the Insurance Company be allowed and the Appeal filed bythe Claimants be dismissed. In support of his submissions, herelied on the Judgments, which are considered in the later part ofthis Judgment.5.It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the Claimantsthat, the Insurance Company failed to prove that, the Accident was6 FA-3593-19 and FA-888-2003.odtthe result of contributory negligence. Only averments are notsufficient and no evidence was led by the Insurance Company. TheClaimants have established their case by examining the witness. The Accident was between [2] two vehicles and the Deceased was athird party and so, non wearing of helmet and no Licence with theDeceased cannot be the issues. The Service Papers brought onrecord were the Public Documents and were proved by examiningthe witness. No objection was raised when the said documentswere exhibited. The learned Tribunal ought not to have deductedthe Professional Tax from the salary of Deceased and havededucted more amount towards Income Tax from the actualamount. The Consortium is not granted to the Claimants. Hence, the Appeal filed by the Claimants be allowed and the Appeal filed bythe Insurance Company be dismissed . In support of hiscontentions, he relied on the Judgments, which are considered inthe later part of this Judgment.6.It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the Owner andDriver of the said Tractor that, the said Tractor was validly insuredwith the Insurance Company and the same is clear from theobservations made in the impugned Judgment and Award. 7.Before adverting to the facts, circumstances and the evidencein the case at hand, the Judgments cited by both the sides areconsidered.7 FA-3593-19 and FA-888-2003.odt[I] Judgments cited by the learned Advocate for the InsuranceCompany[a]SIBY Paul Vs. Praveen Kumar ; LAWS [KER] – 2008-9-56dated September 03, 2008, wherein, the provision of Section 129 ofthe M.V. Act regarding wearing of protective head gear by thoseriding two wheeler is considered. It is observed that, it was for thelearned Tribunal to consider whether in a case of Claim ofcompensation for death or injury of Drivers or Pillion Riders of twowheelers they were wearing helmet at the time of Accident and ifnot whether wearing of helmet would have prevented the death orinjury or reduced the impact of the injury and if the same should bereckoned as an aspect of contributory negligence for reducing thecompensation amount. Any claim made by Riders about wearing ofhelmet at the time of Accident should be critically examined and iffound bogus, the same should be rejected. It is further observedthat, in fact the want of helmet for the Rider may not becontributory to the Accident. However, the use of helmet wouldprevent Head Injury or at least reduce the impact of the injury inthe event of Accident for the Driver and Pillion Rider of the bike ortwo wheeler. [b]Meera Sidharth Kambli Vs. Viraj Ekawade ; LAWS [BOM]-2015-4-59 dated April 18, 2015, wherein, the negligence of Driverof the vehicle involved in the Accident was not proved and, the8 FA-3593-19 and FA-888-2003.odtdecision of the learned Tribunal holding that, the Claimant was notentitled to receive any compensation, was upheld. [c]Pukh Raj Bumb Vs. Jagannath Atchut Naik ; LAWS [BOM]-2013-7-46, wherein, the Claimant had miserably failed to provethat, the Accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of thecar involved in the Accident and it was held that, the Claimant wasnot entitled to receive any compensation on the ground of injuriesresulting in permanent disability. It is also observed that, strictproof of the Accident was not required to be given by the Claimantand the Claimant can prove the case by preponderance ofprobability. [d]New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Ashalata SuryakantPatil and Others, in First Appeal No.2829/2015 [Unreported],wherein, the principles applicable to the cases for compensationunder the M.V. Act came to be reiterated as ; [i] Only on account oftechnicalities the Claim Petition cannot be defeated. [ii] Strict proofof the Accident by particular vehicle in a particular manner is notrequired. [iii] Standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt cannot beapplied. [iv] Evidence is to be appreciated by applying the principleof preponderance of probability. [v] Absence of name of Driver andnumber of motor vehicle involved in the Accident, is not fatal inevery case. [vi] Statement of witness recorded under Section 161of the Code of Criminal Procedure could not be read, and therefore,9 FA-3593-19 and FA-888-2003.odtno relevance or reference can be attributed to it to accelerate theclaim canvassed. On the facts of the case, it was held that, theinvolvement of offending vehicle in the Accident was notestablished. [e]Shabbeer Khan Vs. Gaurav Sharma and Another; 2015 [4]T.A.C. 439 [Raj.], wherein, by considering the delay in lodging theFIR, it was found that, the explanation for delay given by theClaimant was not acceptable, admission of offence by the Owner ofcar was not held to be of any assistance to the Claimant and it washeld that, the finding of Criminal Court was not binding upon thelearned Tribunal and the Claimant therein failed to prove that theAccident occurred with a particular offending vehicle. [f] Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd., Aurangabad Vs.Meera W/o Raju Choudhary and Others ; 2014 [6] Mh.L.J., wherein, the Appeal filed by the Insurance Company was allowed, asClaimants therein failed to establish the involvement of the vehicleinsured with the Appellant, in the Accident. [g] Faridabegum S/o Shaikh Yousuf Vs. Daulat Khan S/o SardarKjan [died] through L.Rs. ; 2014 [6] Mh.L.J., wherein, it wasobserved that, the involvement of the Truck in the Accident wasnot proved. 10 FA-3593-19 and FA-888-2003.odt[h]Anil and Others Vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd andothers; 2018 [5] Mh.L.J, wherein, it is observed that, the learnedTribunal failed to notice crucial aspects of the case which hadbearing on the question as to whether the death of Deceasedtherein was caused as a result of the Accident caused by theTractor. Each of the circumstances relied upon by the High Courtwere germane to the ultimate conclusion that a false case was setup to support a Claim for compensation and the Appellants werenot able to displace the careful analysis of the evidence by the HighCourt and the findings, which were arrived at. [i] Noorjadi Khatoon and Another Vs. Pintu Yadav and Others ;2015 [3] T.A.C 496 [Del.], wherein, it was held that, the amountpaid by the employer under any group personal Accident policytowards Accidental death was liable to be deducted from theamount of compensation. [j]Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Meena Variyal and Others, inCivil Appeal No.5825/2006 decided on 02/04/2007, wherein, theRegional Manager of the Company, which was the Owner of vehicle, was himself driving the vehicle of the Company and during thecourse of it, he died in an Accident and the point for considerationwas whether the Accident took place due to his negligence orotherwise. It is observed that, although being the beneficent peaceof legislature, the learned Tribunal may follow summary11 FA-3593-19 and FA-888-2003.odtprocedure, but should not ignore basic principles of law. In the saidcase, the Claimants failed to implead the Driver of vehicle andfailed to file documentary evidence regarding pay of Deceased. TheAppeal was allowed and the Appellant was exonerated from theliability to pay the compensation. [II] Judgments cited by the learned Advocate for the Claimants[a]Sunita and Others Vs. Rajasthan State Road TransportCorporation and Anr. ; AIR 2019 Supreme Court 994, wherein, it isobserved that, while dealing with the Claim Petition under the M.V.Act, the learned Tribunal would not be strictly bound by thepleadings of the parties. The standard of proof to be borne in mindmust be of preponderance of probability and not the strict standardof proof beyond all reasonable doubts, which is followed in criminalcases. [b]Sh. Fakir Chand Taneja Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Limited ;LAWS [SC]-2022-9-221, wherein, the salary of Deceased wasconsidered by the learned Tribunal without deduction of incometax. In the said case, the learned Tribunal had taken intoconsideration only the basic salary and ignored all the Allowances, such as, Conveyance Allowance, House Rent Allowance, etc. It wasobserved that, the deductions made by the learned Tribunal werenot at all justified except the deduction of driver assistance. The12 FA-3593-19 and FA-888-2003.odtmonthly income of the Deceased therein was considered afterdeducting the income tax and the amount payable as driverassistance. [c]Geeta Dubey Vs. United India Insurance Company Limited ;AIR 2025 Supreme Court 386, wherein, it is observed that, whenthe Accident or involvement of vehicle is disputed, the Claimant isonly expected to prove the same on preponderance of probabilityand not beyond reasonable doubt. 8.Coming to the case on hand, one of the issues framed by thelearned Tribunal was in respect of rash and negligent driving of thevehicle bearing No. MH-20-CR-4863 i.e. the Tractor and death ofthe Deceased due to the said Accident. As regards the contentionof the learned Advocate for the Insurance Company that, theirApplication for examining the Investigating Officer was opposed bythe Claimants, admittedly, there was no challenge to the orderpassed by the learned Tribunal rejecting the Application at Exhibit– 51 filed by the Insurance Company to summon the InvestigatingOfficer in the aforesaid Crime as the Witness. Admittedly, noeyewitness to the Accident was examined by the Claimants. The Claimant No.1, who examined herself before the learnedTribunal, candidly admitted that, she did not witness the Accident. The record shows that, the Claimants moved the Application belowExhibit – 43 for issuance of summons to the eyewitnesses of the13 FA-3593-19 and FA-888-2003.odtAccident and the Director General of CRPF and the learnedTribunal by order dated 24/01/2019 issued Summons only to theDirector General of CRPF. From this, it is clear that, the Claimantswanted to and intended to, examine the eyewitnesses to theAccident. Eventually, The Claimants relied on the Police Papers toprove the factum of motor vehicular Accident and death of NamdeoJalindar Ghuge [Deceased] in the said Accident.9.The Police Papers shows that, Crime No.165/2018 wasregistered against the unknown Driver for the offence punishableunder Sections 304-A, 279 of I.P.C and Section 134/177 of the M.V.Act. The said Crime was registered on 12/05/2018 i.e. on the dateof Accident. The Crime Details Form speaks of the Accident to thesaid motor bike, upon which, the Deceased and his friend weretravelling. The Postmortem Report shows the name of theDeceased. The statement of the witness recorded during theinvestigation, though after three [3] days of the Accident, speaks ofthe Accident due to the use of the said Tractor and the name ofTractor Owner, on inquiry with the people gathered at the spot ofAccident. The Police Papers comprised of the Final Report underSection 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [hereinafterreferred to as ‘Cr.P.C], which indicate that, the investigation of thesaid Crime culminated in filing of Charge-sheet against the Driverof the said Tractor. It is needless to state that, the Charge-sheet14 FA-3593-19 and FA-888-2003.odtwas for the offence of rash and negligent Act by the said TractorDriver. The said delay of three [3] days, will not be of muchconsequence in the MACP. It is settled position under the law that, the Police Papers can be looked into by the learned Tribunal / Courtto determine the issue of negligence in the MACP. Useful referencecan be made in that regard to the Judgment of the Hon’bleSupreme Court of India in ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co.Ltd Vs. Rajani Sahoo & Ors., in Civil Appeal No. __ of 2025 [@ SLP(C) No.29302 of 2019] [Non-Reportable] dated January 02, 2025.Therefore, in the light of the Police Papers available on record, nonexamination of the witness to prove the factum of rash andnegligent driving of the Tractor by its Driver will not be fatal for theClaimants.10.There is no doubt that, Section 129 of the M.V. Actcontemplates wearing of head gear / helmet by the rider of the twowheelers. The suggestion given to the widow of Deceased that, onthe day of Accident, the Deceased was not wearing the helmet, wasdenied. Except the said suggestion, the Insurance Company failedto prove, even on the touchstone of preponderance of probability, their said contention of head gear / helmet.11.As regards the contention that, the Deceased was not holdingthe valid and effective Driving Licence, it has categorically come inthe cross-examination of the widow of Deceased done on behalf of15 FA-3593-19 and FA-888-2003.odtthe Insurance Company that, the Deceased was holding valid andeffective Driving Licence. Her further evidence that, nowadaysthat Licence was missing, will not lead to the conclusion that, theDeceased was not holding the Driving Licence. Thus, no fault canbe found with the answering of the said issue by the learnedTribunal in the affirmative.12.As regards the contention that, there was no sufficient proofin respect of the employment of the Deceased in the services ofCRPF, the evidence of Witness No.2 examined by the Claimants ismore than sufficient to establish that, the Deceased was in theservices of CRPF. The evidence of the said Witness No.2 showsthat, he was a Head Constable in CRPF and pursuant to thedirections from his Office, in response to the Court Summons, hewas deputed to attend the proceedings in the MACP. He deposed ofattending the MACP pursuant to Exhibit – 47, which was theMovement Order issued under the signature of DeputyCommandant [Administration], CRPF, Talegaon, Pune. The saidMovement Order shows that, the Authority to move as referred atSerial No.5 in the said Movement Order, was pursuant to theApproved Note Sheet No. J.II.619/2019/GCP-EC-II dated13/02/2019. Nothing has come in his evidence to discard histestimony and the documents brought on record in his evidence. The Court Summons naturally will not be in the name of Witness16 FA-3593-19 and FA-888-2003.odtNo.2. Non mentioning of authorization to Witness No.2 to give theevidence and file documents in the MACP will not be fatal, as thereis clear mention of Approved Office Note at Serial No.5 in theMovement Order as referred above.13.The Last Pay Certificate in the name of Deceased is broughton record at Exhibit - 48 in the evidence of this Witness No.2. Ithas come in his cross-examination that, the said Last PayCertificate of the Deceased was received by his Office from Jammuand Kashmir by a Fax. Absence of certificate under Section 65-[B]of the Evidence Act will not be fatal to the admissibility of the saidPay Certificate in view of the well settled position under the lawthat, no strict rules of evidence are required while dealing with theMACP Act and the principles of preponderance of probability are tobe applied. Useful reference can be made in that regard to theJudgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Sajeena Ikhbal& Ors. Vs. Mini Babu George & Ors. in Civil Appeal No(s).7881 of2024 [Arising out of SLP (C) No(s). 25114 of 2019] [Reportable]dated October 17, 2024.14.The evidence of this Witness No.2 shows that, the said PayCertificate was received from proper custody. Though the saidCertificate was of February - 2019, the details mentioned thereinshows that, the Deceased was paid the Salary up-to May – 2018amounting to Rs.41,946/-. The Accidental death is also of May –17 FA-3593-19 and FA-888-2003.odt2018. The evidence of this Witness No.2 further shows that, a copyof Leave and Duty Certificate in the name of Deceased was broughton record at Exhibit – 49, showing that, the Deceased wassanctioned the Earned Leave [E.L] from 07/05/2018 to05/06/2018. The motor vehicular Accident took place between thesaid leave period of the Deceased i.e. 12/05/2018. The Papers go toshow that, there is communication at Exhibit – 54 filed by theClaimants and, which was under the signature of DeputyCommandant for DIGP, GC, CRPF, Pune addressed to the learnedPresiding Officer of the Tribunal and it speaks of attending theproceedings of the MACP by Witness No.2, who was the HeadConstable in CRPF. By the said communication, the attested copiesof Service Book, attested copy of the Letter dated 25/02/2019 andattested copies of Form - 16 were sent to the learned Tribunal. Those documents fully established the Claimant’s case that, theDeceased was in the services of CRPF.15.As regards the contention of the learned Advocate for theInsurance Company that, the amount shown in Exhibit – 55 shouldbe deducted from the amount of compensation awarded by thelearned Tribunal, the said amount as shown in the said Letter atExhibit – 55 is reproduced below :-18 FA-3593-19 and FA-888-2003.odtRisk Fund Rs. 13,50,000/- paid to (Smt. Pooja NamdevGhuge (Wife) (Rs.8,50,000/-) and Smt. PushpaJalinder Ghuge (Mother) (Rs.5,00,000/-)GISRs. 31,335/- (Bill sent to PAO vide billNo.H073GI0337-18-19-73, dated 09/2018)Leave EncashmentRs.44,041/- (Bill will be sent to PAO afterpassing of family pension)Family pension / DCRGProposal sent to PAO vide letter No.P.III78/2028-FP-73 dated 15/02/2029GPF / DLIN/A due to appointment after 01/01/2024Form 16Attached with letter16.The said contention in respect of deduction of the said amountfrom the amount of compensation has no base. Useful referencecan be made to the observations in Meenakshi Vs. The OrientalInsurance Co. Ltd., in Civil Appeal No(s). _ of 2024 [Arising out ofPetition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) Diary No.39746 of2018) [Reportable] dated July 23, 2024, by the Hon’ble SupremeCourt of India, which read as under :-9.Recently in a judgment dated 11th July, 2024 in NationalInsurance Company Ltd. v. Nalini and Ors. [Petition forSpecial Leave to Appeal (C) NO.4230/2019], this Court heldthat, allowances under the heads of transport allowance, house rent allowance, provident fund loan, provident fundand special allowance ought to be added while consideringthe basic salary of the victim/deceased to arrive at thedependency factor.10.Therefore, components of house rent allowance, fexiblebenefit plan and company contribution to provident fundhave to be included in the salary of the deceased whileapplying the component of rise in income by future prospectsto determine the dependency factor. … …. ….. ….. …… …… ….. …17.On the very aspect, useful reference can be made to thedecisions in Reliance General Insurance Company Vs. ShashiSharma ; [2016] 9 SCC 627, Sebastiani Lakra Vs. National19 FA-3593-19 and FA-888-2003.odtInsurance Company Limited ; AIR 2018 SC 2079, NationalInsurance Company Ltd. Vs. Mannat Johal [2019] 15 SCC 260 andHelen C. Rebello [Mrs] and Others Vs. Maharashtra StateTransport Corporation and Another ; [1999] 1 SCC 90, reiteratingthe settled position under the law that, Family Pension, ProvidentFund, Insurance, any Cash, Bank Balance, Shares, Fixed Depositetc., are all pecuniary advantages receivable by heirs on account ofone’s death and have no correlation with the amount receivableunder a statute occasioned only on account of Accidental death. Thus, the said amount shown in Exhibit – 55 will not be liable fordeduction from the compensation amount.18.From the above discussed evidence, the Claimants haveestablished that, the Last Pay of Deceased was Rs.41,946/-.Considering the Salary of the Deceased mentioned in the Last PayCertificate, yearly Income of the Deceased from the Salary comes toRs.5,03,352/- [Rs. 41,946 x 12]. There is no dispute that, underthe settled position in law, the Statutory deductions are to be madefrom the Income while computing the compensation in the MACP.Exhibit – 56, which is a Certificate under Section 203 of the IncomeTax Act, 1961 for tax deducted at source from income chargeableunder the head “Salaries”, is for the period from March – 2017 toFebruary – 2018. The said document shows that, the Tax on thetotal Income of Deceased was Rs.3,025/- and Rs.2,500/-, were20 FA-3593-19 and FA-888-2003.odtdeducted from the same towards Rebate and the final Income Taxwas computed as Rs.525/-. In the said document, the total GrossIncome of the Deceased is shown as Rs.3,72,024/- and afterdeductions, barring Income Tax, Income is shown as Rs.3,10,510/-.From this, it appears that, till February – 2018, monthly Salary ofthe Deceased was less then the Salary shown in the Last PayCertificate. The consideration of the Last Pay of the Deceased bythe learned Tribunal cannot be faulted. The Last Pay Certificate donot show deduction towards the Income Tax. However, from theabove Certificate at Exhibit – 56, it is clear that, the Income of theDeceased was taxable. From the above material on record i.e. LastPay Certificate and Certificate at Exhibit – 56 towards the Tax, itappears that, the Salary of the Deceased prior to the said Last Paywas below Five Lakhs. It is needless to state that, the Tax on theIncome is governed by the provisions of the Income Tax Act. It isnot clear as to how come there was deduction of Rs.2,500/- towardsrebate from the Income Tax shown in the aforesaid Certificate atExhibit – 56. There is no material on record to show that, as to howmuch Income Tax was deducted from the Salary of the Deceasedfrom March – 2018. There can be no two views on the aspect that, the actual Income Tax deduction shown in the admissibledocuments will have to be considered for Statutory deductionunder the head of Income Tax from the income. In absence of any21 FA-3593-19 and FA-888-2003.odtother document contrary to this on the aspect of Income Tax, theamount of Rs.3,025/- as shown in Exhibit – 56 as the amount of Taxon total Income, is to be deducted from the income of the Deceased. The amount of yearly income after deducting the said amounttowards Income Tax from the income of the Deceased would cometo Rs.5,00,327/-. 19.The Last Pay Certificate at Exhibit – 48 and the abovereferred Certificate in respect of deductions at Exhibit – 56nowhere shows deductions towards the Professional Tax. It isestablished that, the Deceased was in CRPF, which comes underthe Central Government. In absence of any material to showthat, Professional Tax was deducted, from the Salary of theDeceased, the deduction of Rs.2,500/- by the learned Tribunaltowards Professional Tax from the yearly Income of theDeceased is without any basis and there is nothing to show that, the Maharashtra State Tax on Professions, Trades, Callings andEmployment Act, 1975 was applicable to the Deceased. Hence, in absence of any material to support the deduction towardsProfessional Tax as made by the learned Tribunal, the sameneeds to be interfered with.20.As regards 50% addition to the total income per year, 1/3rddeductions towards Personal and Living Expenses, Multiplier of22 FA-3593-19 and FA-888-2003.odt17, and amount towards Funeral Expenses and Loss of Estateconsidered and computed by the learned Tribunal do not call forany interference, being in accordance with the Judgment inNational Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi And Ors.[2017] 16 SCC 680.21.As regards the Consortium of 40,000/- granted by thelearned Tribunal is concerned, it needs to be granted to eachClaimant being Widow, Daughter and Mother of the Deceasedtowards Spousal Consortium, Filial Consortium and ParentalConsortium in light of the Judgment in Magma GeneralInsurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram and Ors. ; 2019 [4] Mh.LJ 1.As far as grant of Interest is concerned, the learned Tribunalawarded the same by relying on the Judgment in Neeta Vs. TheDiv. Manager, MSRTC in Civil Appeal Nos. 348-349 of 2015[Arising out of SLP (C) Nos.4897-4898 of 2014] dated13/01/2015. The said Judgment is based on the Judgment inMunicipal Corporation of Delhi, Delhi Vs. Uphaar TragedyVictims Association and Ors.; MANU/SC/1255/2011.22.In view of the above discussion, the compensation awardedby the learned Tribunal needs to be re-calculated and modifiedas follows :-23 FA-3593-19 and FA-888-2003.odtNos. Particulars AmountATotal income per year41,946 x 125,03,352/-BLess 10% Income Tax5,03,352 – 3,0255,00,327/-C50% to be added in total income per year 5,00,327 + 2,50,1637,50,490/-D1/3 deductions towards personal andliving expenses7,50,490 ÷ 3 =2,50,1635,00,327/-EPecuniary loss after applying multiplier of 17 as the Deceased was just 30 years old5,00,327 x 1785,05,559/-FAdd : Funeral Expenses15,000/-GAdd : Loss of Estate15,000/-HAdd : Loss of Consortium40,000 x 3 1,20,000/-ITotal Compensation payable to the Claimants86,55,559/-25.In light of the above, the Appeal filed by the InsuranceCompany is dismissed and the Appeal filed by the Claimants ispartly allowed. The impugned Judgment and Order / Award standsmodified to the extent as shown in the above Chart. Theapportionment of the total compensation will be as follows :-1.Widow :-Rs. 50,00,000/-2.Daughter :-Rs. 26,55,559/-3.Mother :-Rs. 10,00,000/-25.1The Operative Order of the impugned Judgment inrespect of investing the amount of compensation from the Shareof the Claimants is maintained.26.The Appeals stand disposed off accordingly. [NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.]24 FA-3593-19 and FA-888-2003.odtLATER ON :-27.After the pronouncement of Judgment, the learnedAdvocate for the Insurance Company seeks stay to the effectand implementation of the Order, by which the Appeals of theClaimants are partly allowed. He submits that, the InsuranceCompany intends to challenge the same.28.The learned Advocate for the Claimants opposes the saidprayer.29.As the Appeals arise out of the Motor Accident Claim, prayer of the Insurance Company is rejected. [NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.] Sameer/April-202525