(O&M) v. RANBIR SINGH & Anr.

Present: Mr. , Advocate Mr. Vimal Kumar Gupta, Advocate for the appellants. for the appellant Mr. Shubham Gupta Mr. Shubham Gupta, Advocate for Mr. Raj Kumar Bashamboo, Advocate Mr. Raj Kumar Bashamboo, Advocate Mr. Raj Kumar Bashamboo, Advocate for respondent No.2. **** HARKESH MANUJA, J. HARKESH MANUJA, J. HARKESH MANUJA, J. HARKESH MANUJA, J. HARKESH MANUJA, J. HARKESH MANUJA, J. HARKESH MANUJA, J. HARKESH MANUJA, J.

1.1.1.1. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellants/claimants The present appeal has been preferred by the appellants/claimants The present appeal has been preferred by the appellants/claimants The present appeal has been preferred by the appellants/claimants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, challenging the award dated under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, challenging the award dated under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, challenging the award dated under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, challenging the award dated ms Tribunal, Yamuna Nagar 08.11.2010 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Yamuna Nagar 08.11.2010 passed by the learned Motor Accident Clai 08.11.2010 passed by the learned Motor Accident Clai at Jagadhari (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), whereby compensation to the tune of at Jagadhari (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), whereby compensation to the tune of at Jagadhari (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), whereby compensation to the tune of at Jagadhari (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), whereby compensation to the tune of alongwith interest @ 7.5% per annum was awarded on account of Rs.20,85,000/- alongwith interest @ 7.5% per annum was awarded on account of alongwith interest @ 7.5% per annum was awarded on account of alongwith interest @ 7.5% per annum was awarded on account of death of Ashok Raj @ Ashok Kumar in a motor vehicular accident dated death of Ashok Raj @ Ashok Kumar in a motor vehicular accident dated death of Ashok Raj @ Ashok Kumar in a motor vehicular accident dated death of Ashok Raj @ Ashok Kumar in a motor vehicular accident dated

09.08.2009.

2.2.2.2. As sole issue for determination in the present appeal is confined to As sole issue for determination in the present appeal is confined to As sole issue for determination in the present appeal is confined to As sole issue for determination in the present appeal is confined to quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, a detailed narration of facts of quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, a detailed narration of facts of quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, a detailed narration of facts of quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, a detailed narration of facts of the case is not reproduced herein for the sake of brevity. the case is not reproduced herein for the sake of brevity. the case is not reproduced herein for the sake of brevity. 2 FAO NO.7072 OF 2011 2011 (O&M) ED COUNSEL FOR THE ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ED COUNSEL FOR THE ED COUNSEL FOR THE ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF LEARN ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF LEARN ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF LEARN ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF LEARN ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF LEARN ED COUNSEL FOR THE ED COUNSEL FOR THE ED COUNSEL FOR THE ED COUNSEL FOR THE ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF LEARN ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF LEARN ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF LEARN ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF LEARN ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF LEARN ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF LEARN APPELLANTS/CLAIMANTS. APPELLANTS/CLAIMANTS. APPELLANTS/CLAIMANTS. APPELLANTS/CLAIMANTS. APPELLANTS/CLAIMANTS. APPELLANTS/CLAIMANTS. APPELLANTS/CLAIMANTS. APPELLANTS/CLAIMANTS.

3.3.3.3. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the compensation Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the compensation Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the compensation Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was on the lower side and deserved enhancement. It was awarded by the Tribunal was on the lower side and deserved enhancement. It was awarded by the Tribunal was on the lower side and deserved enhancement. It was awarded by the Tribunal was on the lower side and deserved enhancement. It was allowance and special diet argued that the Tribunal erred in deducting washing allowance and special diet argued that the Tribunal erred in deducting washing argued that the Tribunal erred in deducting washing allowance from the salary of the deceased. He further submitted that the learned allowance from the salary of the deceased. He further submitted that the learned allowance from the salary of the deceased. He further submitted that the learned allowance from the salary of the deceased. He further submitted that the learned Tribunal wrongly deducted income tax though the deceased was entitled to various Tribunal wrongly deducted income tax though the deceased was entitled to various Tribunal wrongly deducted income tax though the deceased was entitled to various Tribunal wrongly deducted income tax though the deceased was entitled to various tended that exemptions and deductions under the Income Tax Act. It was also contended that exemptions and deductions under the Income Tax Act. It was also con exemptions and deductions under the Income Tax Act. It was also con fourth instead of one- deduction towards personal expenses ought to have been one-fourth instead of one deduction towards personal expenses ought to have been one deduction towards personal expenses ought to have been one third keeping in view the number of dependents. Learned counsel further submitted third keeping in view the number of dependents. Learned counsel further submitted third keeping in view the number of dependents. Learned counsel further submitted third keeping in view the number of dependents. Learned counsel further submitted that the amount awarded under conventional heads was extremely meager and that the amount awarded under conventional heads was extremely meager and that the amount awarded under conventional heads was extremely meager and that the amount awarded under conventional heads was extremely meager and d substantial enhancement in light of subsequent pronouncements of the required substantial enhancement in light of subsequent pronouncements of the d substantial enhancement in light of subsequent pronouncements of the d substantial enhancement in light of subsequent pronouncements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Hon’ble Supreme Court. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT No.2/INSURANCE COMPANY. No.2/INSURANCE COMPANY. No.2/INSURANCE COMPANY. No.2/INSURANCE COMPANY. No.2/INSURANCE COMPANY. No.2/INSURANCE COMPANY. No.2/INSURANCE COMPANY. No.2/INSURANCE COMPANY.

4.4.4.4. respondent No. 2/Insurance Per contra, learned counsel representing respondent No. 2/Insurance Per contra, learned counsel representing Per contra, learned counsel representing ny, neither refuted the factum of accident nor even the negligence of the Company, neither refuted the factum of accident nor even the negligence of the ny, neither refuted the factum of accident nor even the negligence of the ny, neither refuted the factum of accident nor even the negligence of the offending vehicle, however submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the offending vehicle, however submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the offending vehicle, however submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the offending vehicle, however submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the compensation assessed by the learned Tribunal called for no present case, the compensation assessed by the learned Tribunal called for no present case, the compensation assessed by the learned Tribunal called for no present case, the compensation assessed by the learned Tribunal called for no interference. DISCUSSION AND REASONING DISCUSSION AND REASONING AND REASONING AND REASONING DISCUSSION DISCUSSION AND REASONING AND REASONING AND REASONING AND REASONING

5.5.5.5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper- I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book of the case. I find substance in the submissions made by learned counsel for book of the case. I find substance in the submissions made by learned counsel for book of the case. I find substance in the submissions made by learned counsel for book of the case. I find substance in the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants. 3 FAO NO.7072 OF 2011 2011 (O&M) QUESTION OF INCOME ASSESSED QUESTION OF INCOME ASSESSED QUESTION OF INCOME ASSESSED QUESTION OF INCOME ASSESSED QUESTION OF INCOME ASSESSED QUESTION OF INCOME ASSESSED QUESTION OF INCOME ASSESSED QUESTION OF INCOME ASSESSED

6.6.6.6. A perusal of the record shows that the A perusal of the record was working as a shows that the deceased was working as a 4 Ombir Singh Pundeer, Assistant Accountant, Constable in U.P. Police. PW-4 Ombir Singh Pundeer, Assistant Accountant, 4 Ombir Singh Pundeer, Assistant Accountant, Constable in U.P. Police. PW Police Department, Meerut, proved the salary certificate Ex.P9 and categorically Police Department, Meerut, proved the salary certificate Ex.P9 and categorically Police Department, Meerut, proved the salary certificate Ex.P9 and categorically Police Department, Meerut, proved the salary certificate Ex.P9 and categorically . The deposed that the deceased was drawing salary of Rs.15,363/- per month. The deposed that the deceased was drawing salary of Rs.15,363/ deposed that the deceased was drawing salary of Rs.15,363/ and special diet allowance learned Tribunal excluded washing allowance of Rs.30/- and special diet allowance learned Tribunal excluded washing allowance of Rs.30/ learned Tribunal excluded washing allowance of Rs.30/ while computing income. However, the said approach cannot be of Rs.700/- while computing income. However, the said approach cannot be while computing income. However, the said approach cannot be while computing income. However, the said approach cannot be ly held sustained. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in various decisions has consistently held sustained. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in various decisions has consistent sustained. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in various decisions has consistent that while determining income of a salaried employee, allowances forming part of that while determining income of a salaried employee, allowances forming part of that while determining income of a salaried employee, allowances forming part of that while determining income of a salaried employee, allowances forming part of regular emoluments and contributing towards the economic benefit of the family regular emoluments and contributing towards the economic benefit of the family regular emoluments and contributing towards the economic benefit of the family regular emoluments and contributing towards the economic benefit of the family are liable to be included unless they are purely reimbursable in nature. In the are liable to be included unless they are purely reimbursable in nature. In the are liable to be included unless they are purely reimbursable in nature. In the are liable to be included unless they are purely reimbursable in nature. In the case, the allowances in question were being regularly paid to the deceased present case, the allowances in question were being regularly paid to the deceased case, the allowances in question were being regularly paid to the deceased case, the allowances in question were being regularly paid to the deceased as part of his monthly salary. There is nothing on record to suggest that the same as part of his monthly salary. There is nothing on record to suggest that the same as part of his monthly salary. There is nothing on record to suggest that the same as part of his monthly salary. There is nothing on record to suggest that the same were merely reimbursable allowances. Furthermore, the Tribunal deducted income were merely reimbursable allowances. Furthermore, the Tribunal deducted income were merely reimbursable allowances. Furthermore, the Tribunal deducted income were merely reimbursable allowances. Furthermore, the Tribunal deducted income However, no cogent evidence was led to establish the actual tax tax of Rs.7,040/-. However, no cogent evidence was led to establish the actual tax However, no cogent evidence was led to establish the actual tax tax of Rs.7,040/ liability of the deceased. Moreover, the taxable income after permissible liability of the deceased. Moreover, the taxable income after permissible liability of the deceased. Moreover, the taxable income after permissible liability of the deceased. Moreover, the taxable income after permissible deductions under the Income Tax Act would substantially stand reduced. In deductions under the Income Tax Act would substantially stand reduced. In deductions under the Income Tax Act would substantially stand reduced. In deductions under the Income Tax Act would substantially stand reduced. In ctual tax liability, deduction towards absence of any reliable evidence regarding actual tax liability, deduction towards ctual tax liability, deduction towards absence of any reliable evidence regarding a “Vimal income tax was not justified. Reference in this regard can be made to “Vimal “Vimal “Vimal income tax was not justified. Reference in this regard can be made to income tax was not justified. Reference in this regard can be made to “Vimal “Vimal “Vimal “Vimal 2013 (7) SCC 476, Kanwar and others vs. Kishore Dan and others,” reported as 2013 (7) SCC 476, 2013 (7) SCC 476, 2013 (7) SCC 476, Kanwar and others vs. Kishore Dan and others,” Kanwar and others vs. Kishore Dan and others,” Kanwar and others vs. Kishore Dan and others,” Kanwar and others vs. Kishore Dan and others,” Kanwar and others vs. Kishore Dan and others,” 2013 (7) SCC 476, 2013 (7) SCC 476, 2013 (7) SCC 476, 2013 (7) SCC 476, Kanwar and others vs. Kishore Dan and others,” Kanwar and others vs. Kishore Dan and others,” Kanwar and others vs. Kishore Dan and others,” Kanwar and others vs. Kishore Dan and others,” Kanwar and others vs. Kishore Dan and others,” Kanwar and others vs. Kishore Dan and others,” wherein it was held that unless there is positive evidence regarding income tax wherein it was held that unless there is positive evidence regarding income tax wherein it was held that unless there is positive evidence regarding income tax wherein it was held that unless there is positive evidence regarding income tax liability, arbitrary deduction ought not to be made. Consequently, the monthly liability, arbitrary deduction ought not to be made. Consequently, the monthly liability, arbitrary deduction ought not to be made. Consequently, the monthly liability, arbitrary deduction ought not to be made. Consequently, the monthly income of the deceased is assessed at Rs.15,363/-. income of the deceased is assessed at Rs.15,363/ income of the deceased is assessed at Rs.15,363/ 4 FAO NO.7072 OF 2011 2011 (O&M) DEDUCTION QUESTION OF FUTURE PROSPECTS, MULTIPLIER AND DEDUCTION DEDUCTION DEDUCTION QUESTION OF FUTURE PROSPECTS, MULTIPLIER AND QUESTION OF FUTURE PROSPECTS, MULTIPLIER AND QUESTION OF FUTURE PROSPECTS, MULTIPLIER AND QUESTION OF FUTURE PROSPECTS, MULTIPLIER AND QUESTION OF FUTURE PROSPECTS, MULTIPLIER AND DEDUCTION DEDUCTION DEDUCTION DEDUCTION QUESTION OF FUTURE PROSPECTS, MULTIPLIER AND QUESTION OF FUTURE PROSPECTS, MULTIPLIER AND QUESTION OF FUTURE PROSPECTS, MULTIPLIER AND QUESTION OF FUTURE PROSPECTS, MULTIPLIER AND QUESTION OF FUTURE PROSPECTS, MULTIPLIER AND QUESTION OF FUTURE PROSPECTS, MULTIPLIER AND TOWARDS PERSONAL EXPENSES. TOWARDS PERSONAL EXPENSES. TOWARDS PERSONAL EXPENSES. TOWARDS PERSONAL EXPENSES. TOWARDS PERSONAL EXPENSES. TOWARDS PERSONAL EXPENSES. TOWARDS PERSONAL EXPENSES. TOWARDS PERSONAL EXPENSES.

7.7.7.7. The deceased was aged about 43 years and 6 months at the time of The deceased was aged about 43 years and 6 months at the time of The deceased was aged about 43 years and 6 months at the time of The deceased was aged about 43 years and 6 months at the time of accident. The age recorded by the Tribunal is duly borne out from the record and is accident. The age recorded by the Tribunal is duly borne out from the record and is accident. The age recorded by the Tribunal is duly borne out from the record and is accident. The age recorded by the Tribunal is duly borne out from the record and is overnment service, accordingly affirmed. Since the deceased was in permanent government service, accordingly affirmed. Since the deceased was in permanent g accordingly affirmed. Since the deceased was in permanent g “National Insurance addition towards future prospects is liable to be granted. In “National Insurance “National Insurance “National Insurance addition towards future prospects is liable to be granted. In addition towards future prospects is liable to be granted. In “National Insurance “National Insurance “National Insurance “National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi,” reported as Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi,” Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi,” Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi,” Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi,” Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi,” Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi,” Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi,”