HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
M.A.C.M.A.No.116 of 2022
Between:
M/s United India Insurance Company Ltd.,
Rep. by its Manager, Motor TP Service HUB
2nd Floor, R R Apparao Street, One Town,
VIJAYAWADA
.. Appellant
And
Mrs. Martha Bala Naga Lakshmi
W/o Late Murali Mohan Rao,
Aged 38 years, Occ: House maker and 5 others.
.. Respondents
DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 24.06.2022 SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE U. DURGA PRASAD RAO THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers Yes/No may be allowed to see the Judgments?
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be Yes/No marked to Law Reporters/Journals?
3. Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship wish to Yes/No see the fair copy of the Judgment?
_________________________ U. DURGA PRASAD RAO, J _____________________________ G. RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J 2 *HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE U.DURGA PRASAD RAO AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD + M.A.C.M.A.No.116 of 2022 % 24-06-2022 # M/s United India Insurance Company Ltd., Rep. by its Manager, Motor TP Service HUB 2nd Floor, R R Apparao Street, One Town, VIJAYAWADA .
..Appellant Vs.
$ Mrs. Martha Bala Naga Lakshmi W/o Late Murali Mohan Rao, Aged 38 years, Occ: House maker and 5 others.
.. Respondents <GIST:
>HEAD NOTE:
! Counsel for appellant: Sri V. Veera Bhadra Chary ^ Counsel for respondents: Sri Venkata Rao ? CASES REFERRED:
1. (2008) 2 SCC 763
2. MANU/GH/0756/2006 = 2008 (Supl.) GLT 149
3. MANU/UP/0795/2007 = 2007 3 AWC2605AII
4. MANU/WB/0281/2009 = 2010ACJ1936 3 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE U.DURGA PRASAD RAO AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD M.A.C.MA.No.116 of 2022 JUDGMENT : (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice U. Durga Prasad Rao) The challenge in this appeal at the instance of the Insurance Company is to the order dated 01.11.2021 in MVOP No.416/2017 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-XII Additional District Judge, Guntur granting compensation of Rs.59,37,584/- with interst @ 7.5% p.a. to the claimants who are the LRs of Martha Murali Mohan Rao who died in a motor vehicle accident on 22.04.2016 when his two wheeler was dashed by School Bus bearing No.AP13Y2939.
2. Heard Sri V. Veera Bhadra Chary, learned counsel for appellant and Sri Venkata Rao, learned counsel for respondents/claimants.
3. The main thrust of argument of learned counsel for appellant is that as per the Ex.A12-pay slip the monthly salary of deceased was Rs.35,045/- of which conveyance allowance was Rs.6,952/- and conveyance allowance being a personal benefit to the deceased which will not inure to the benefit of his family, the same cannot be included in the net salary of the deceased. However, the tribunal has wrongly added the said allowance to the salary and thereby the compensation was exorbitantly increased. He placed 4 reliance on National Insurance Co., Ltd. V. Indira Srivastava1 to buttress his arguments that conveyance allowance cannot be added to the net salary.
4. Learned counsel for respondents while opposing the appeal supported compensation covered by the tribunal.
5. The point for consideration in this appeal is whether conveyance allowance can be included to the net salary of the deceased for computation of compensation?
5. POINT: We have bestowed our attention to the above argument of the appellant. Every employee has to proceed from his residence to his office or work place to attend his daily duties. In most cases the office and residence of employees and workers are separated by long distance except in few cases where the employees and workers are provided with quarters nearby their office and work place. Therefore, now-a-days most of the employers have been providing either transportation facility or conveyance allowance to their employees and workmen to reach office promptly in time to attend their duties. This allowance would generally continue till an employee retires. The question is whether such an allowance should form part of his net salary for computation of compensation in motor vehicle accident cases. As stated supra, the contention of the appellant is that since the conveyance allowance is given to the employee for his personal use such as travelling from his residence to office and back by using his own vehicle or by other mode of transportation, such an allowance shall be regarded as 1 (2008) 2 SCC 763 5 his personal benefit and not as a benefit to his family and hence the same cannot be made as part of the salary so as to compute the compensation.
6. Though apparently this argument looks sound, but will not stand to logical scrutiny. Since the attending duty is a must for every employee, he has to proceed to office or work place on all working days by incurring expenditure. If the employer do not provide allowance, naturally the employee has to spend from his pocket to meet the conveyance charges. However, if the employer provides conveyance allowance, to that extent the employee saves his salary and utilizes the same for his family. In that way, family of an employee is also being benefitted by the conveyance allowance. Therefore we are of the view that conveyance allowance cannot be excluded from the salary for computation of compensation.
7. We have gone through the decision in National Insurance Co., Ltd. V. Indira Srivastava (supra 1). In the said decision the conveyance allowance is not a disputed fact. Therefore, the said decision will not support the case of the appellant. While so, there is a difference of opinion among some High Courts. In Nani Bala Dey v. Kanu Das2 the High Court of Gauhati (Agartala Bench) has not taken the washing allowance, conveyance allowance and productivity allowance of the deceased as part of net salary to compute compensation. However, learned single Judge did not assign any reason for such an omission. In National Insurance Company Ltd v. Indira Srivastava3 the High Court of Allahabad also excluded the 2 MANU/GH/0756/2006 = 2008 (Supl.) GLT 149 3 MANU/UP/0795/2007 = 2007 3 AWC2605AII 6 conveyance allowance and leave travel reimbursement while computing the net income of the deceased. However, in National Insurance Company Ltd v. Renuka Saha4 a division bench of Calcuta High Court has observed that there was no justification of deducting the conveyance allowance paid to the victim as that was also his income.
8. We have already expressed our view that to the extent of the conveyance allowance received by an employee, he is saving his salary and utilizing the same for his family and therefore conveyance allowance has to be treated as part of the net salary for computation of compensation.
9. Accordingly, we find no merits in the appeal and accordingly the appeal is dismissed by confirming the order dated 01.11.2021 in M.V.O.P No.416/2017 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-XII Additional District Judge, Guntur. No costs.
As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_________________________ U.DURGA PRASAD RAO, J _____________________________ G. RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J 24.06.2022 krk 4 MANU/WB/0281/2009 = 2010ACJ1936 7 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE U.DURGA PRASAD RAO AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD M.A.C.MA.No.116 of 2022 24th June, 2022 krk