Jharkhand High Court
Monalisha Banerjee vs Ishaan Salhotra on 21 December, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
M. A. No. 118 of 2018
1. Monalisha Banerjee
2. Minor Mirtyunjoy Kumar Banerjee .... .... Appellants
Versus
1. Ishaan Salhotra
2. National Insurance Company Limited
3. Deep Shikha Banerjee
4. Chandi Das Banerjee .... .... Respondents
------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY
------
For the Appellants : Mr. Amit Kr. Das, Advocate
For the Respondents : M/s Manish Kumar, Alok Lal
& Akshay Kr. Mahato, Advocates
C.A.V. ON 17.12.2021 PRONOUNCED ON 21/12/2021
The claimants have preferred the instant appeal for enhance-
ment of compensation awarded in Compensation Case No. 203 of 2016
for the death of Abhishek Banerjee in a motor vehicle accident involving a
taxi bearing Registration No. HP 01A - 4826 in which the deceased was
travelling at the relevant time of accident.
2. Enhancement has been claimed on the ground that the deceased
was General Manager in Belidih Club, Jamshedpur with a monthly salary
of Rs.88,000/- but the learned Tribunal accepted the monthly income of
the deceased to be Rs.51,000/- and erred in not considering the other al-
lowances which the deceased was getting. It is submitted that as per ratio
laid down in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi
(2017) 16 SCC 680 only the income tax is to be deducted in determining
the net salary.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company
has strongly contested the claim of enhancement on the ground that the al-
lowance under the head of conveyance, education were specifically meant
for the deceased employee of the Company and cannot be computed under
the heading of loss of future income, since these allowances were only
meant for the deceased employee.
4. It is not in dispute that the gross salary of the deceased at the re-
levant time of accident was Rs.88,000/-. The matter for consideration is
whether only the income tax is to be deducted from his gross salary or the
salary paid under other different heads by special allowance, education al-
lowance etc. need to be deducted. The law in this point has been settled in
Pranay Sethi case wherein it has been held that income means actual in-
come less the tax paid. In subsequent judgments of the Hon'ble Apex
Court National Insurance Co Ltd Vs. Birender and Ors. 2020 (2) JCR
22 SC wherein it has been held that any deduction other than tax cannot
be reckoned with.
From the above, it follows that the monthly income of the de-
ceased of Rs.88,000/- minus the income tax will be the income to be con-
sidered for computing the final compensation amount. Taking Rs.88,000/-
as the monthly income the compensation shall work out to Rs.88,000/- x
12 = Rs.10,56,000/-.
After deducting the approximate applicable income tax the an-
nual income of the deceased will work out to Rs.10,56,000/- -
Rs.1,50,000/- = Rs.9,06,000/-.
Thus, the appellants are entitled to the following amounts
towards compensation:
(a) Loss of Dependency after deducing
1/ 3rd on the personal expenses
Rs.6,04,000/ X 15 = Rs.90,60,000/-
(b) Future Prospect Rs.45,30,000/-
(c) Conventional head (Loss of estate
& consortium, funeral expenses Rs. 77,000/-
Total Rs.1,36,67,000/-
Thus, the claimants will be entitled to total compensation of
Rs.1,36,67,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% from the date of filing of
claim application to its realization. The Insurance Company shall make
full and final satisfaction of the compensation amount and to that effect
shall make payment to learned Tribunal within a month of this order. The
learned Tribunal shall on proper identification and verification shall
disburse the amount to the claimants in the manner as follows:
a. 2/3rd of the total compensation amount shall be paid individually to
Claimant No. 1,
b. 1/3rd of the total compensation amount to be paid to Claimant No. 2
jointly with Claimant No. 1. The amount so received shall be fix
deposited in the name of Claimant No. 2 Minor Mirtyunjoy Kumar
Banerjee with Claimant No. 1 Monalisha Banerjee for the period till
the miner attains the age of 21 years in a Nationalized Bank.
In the result, the appeal is allowed as at above.
(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
Dated the 21st December, 2021
AFR / AKT
