Jharkhand High Court
Sarita Mehta vs Durga Charan Thakur on 24 November, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
M.A. No. 129 of 2016
Sarita Mehta .... Appellant(s)
Versus.
1. Durga Charan Thakur
2. The Principal, Krishna Coaching Academy, Bokaro
3. The Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Bokaro.
4. Sourabh Kumar
5. Puja Kumari. ... Respondent(s).
----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN
THROUGH: VIDEO CONFERENCING.
-----
For the appellant(s): M/s Ahok Kr. Sinha, Advocate.
For the Insurance Co: Mr. G.C.Jha, Advocate.
-----
08/24.11.2021: Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. This Miscellaneous Appeal, filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 by the claimant, wherein she has prayed for enhancement of
amount of compensation, granted to her by Award dated 30.9.2015 passed by the
Principal District Judge-cum-PO.-Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Civil Court, Bokaro
in T.M.V. Claim case No. 82/2013.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the tribunal has wrongly
assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.13,338/- per month, which, in fact was
his take home salary. He further submits that his voluntarily deduction from salary
was not considered as a component of income of the deceased. He also submits
that in terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National
Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Others reported in (2017) 16
SCC 680, only the income tax component should be deducted while assessing the
monthly income of the deceased. He further submits that admittedly the deceased
was a permanent employee and was working with State Bank of India thus, in terms
of the judgment reported in the case of Pranay Sethi (Supra), the claimant is
entitled to receive compensation on account of future prospect, which has not been
awarded in the instant case.
4. Mr. G.C. Jha, learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that
the Tribunal has awarded the amount of compensation on the higher side, which
would be evident from the fact that under the conventional head, Rs.1,25,000/- has
been awarded, which should be Rs.70,000/- as per the judgment of Pranay Sethi
(supra). He also submits that Rs.14,58,606/- has already been deposited on
8.4.2016 before the Tribunal towards the satisfaction of the award.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I find that the only
dispute is in respect of computation of salary of the deceased for the purpose of
calculating the compensation amount. Neither the manner of accident nor coverage
of vehicle by the insurance policy and the multiplier applied in this case, is disputed.
The liability of the Insurance Company to satisfy the award is also not disputed.
Keeping in view of the limited dispute, this Court has to decide as to what would be
the income of the deceased.
6. I find that the Tribunal has replied upon the certificate of salary of the
deceased, which is marked as "X" for identification. When,I go through the certificate
issued by the State Bank of India, I find that the salary of the deceased was
Rs.23,293/- at the time of accident. From the aforesaid certificate of salary I find that
some amount has been deducted under different heads, i.e. the deduction of
membership of Union, Membership of Association, Provident Fund, Membership
towards the employees' Credit Society and income tax etc. The income tax
deducted from the salary of the deceased for a particular month is Rs.242/-.
7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (Supra) in
Para-59.4 had held that the established income means the income minus the tax
component. From the aforesaid judgment, I find that nothing can be deducted from
the salary of a person except income tax deduction, while assessing the income of
the deceased. Considering the Judgment in the case of Pranay Sethi (Supra) the
correct income of the deceased would be Rs.23,051/-(Rs.23,293-Rs.242) per
month. Thus the annual income of the deceased would be Rs.23,051 X 12=
Rs.2,76,612/-.
8. Further from the aforesaid judgment, I find that no future prospect has
been awarded while assessing the amount of compensation. Admittedly, the
deceased was aged about 53 years, at the time of accident and was a permanent
employee, thus, the claimant is entitled for enhancement of 15% amount on account
of future prospect.
9. Considering the aforesaid aspects, the amount of compensation is re-
calculated as follows:-
Rs.2,76,612/- (annual income) X 11 (multiplier)= Rs.30,42,732.00
Rs.30,42,732-Rs.10,14,244 (less 1/3rd) = Rs.20,28,488/-
Rs.20,28,488/- + 3,04,273/- (Future Prospect)= Rs.23,32,761/-
Rs.23,32,795/- + 70,000/- (conventional head)= Rs.24,02,761/-
Thus, the total amount of compensation comes to Rs.Rs.24,02,761/-
(Rupees twenty four lakh two thousand seven hundred and sixty one only)
10. The Insurance Company has already deposited Rs.14,58,606/- with the
Tribunal.
11. In that view, the Insurance Company is directed to pay the balance
amount of compensation to the wife of the deceased within ten weeks along with
interest @ 7% per annum from the date of award passed by the Tribunal i.e. from
30.9.2015 till the amount is paid. The Tribunal will release the amount lying with it,
to the claimants as per the direction given in the award.
12. This appeal is allowed accordingly.
Anu/-C.P.2 (ANANDA SEN, J.)
