Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shashikala Rokde vs Surendra Kanouje on 18 June, 2024
Author: Avanindra Kumar Singh
Bench: Avanindra Kumar Singh
1 MA-941-2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH
ON THE 18 th OF JUNE, 2024
MISC. APPEAL No. 941 of 2021
BETWEEN:-
1. SHASHIKALA ROKDE W/O LATE RAMLAL ROKDE,
AGED ABOUT 55 Y E A R S , OCCUPATION:
ASSISTANT GOVT. TEACHER VILLAGE KINHI
MANDIR TOLA POST BHORGARH TEHSIL
KHERLANJI DISTT. BALAGHAT (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. VIKAS ROKDE S/O LATE RAMLAL ROKDE, AGED
ABOUT 34 YEARS, OCCUPATION: PRIVATE JOB
VILLAGE KINHI MANDIR TOLA POST BHORGARH
TEHSIL KHERLANJI DISTT. BALAGHAT (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. AKASH ROKDE S/O LATE RAMLAL ROKDE, AGED
ABOUT 32 YEARS, OCCUPATION: UNEMPLOYED
VILLAGE KINHI MANDIR TOLA POST BHORGARH
TEHSIL KHERLANJI DISTT. BALAGHAT (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI PRAVESH NAVERIYA - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. SURENDRA KANOUJE S/O SHRI DINESH KANOUJE
OCCUPATION: OWNER VILLAGE LILAME POST
BHORGARH TEHSIL KHERLANJI DISTT.
BALAGHAT (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. KRISHNKUMAR LILHARE S/O SHRI GODHANLAL
L I L H A R E WARD NO. 3 KHERLANJI TEH.
KHERLANJI, DISTRICT BALAGHAT (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. BRANCH
OFFICE STATION ROAD BALAGHAT (MADHYA
PRADESH)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH
MAMTANI
Signing time: 19-06-2024
18:22:04
2 MA-941-2021
.....RESPONDENTS
(RESPONDENT NO.3 BY SHRI ANOOP NAIR - ADVOCATE WITH
MS.GUNJAN NAIR- ADVOCATE))
MISC. APPEAL No. 1033 of 2021
BETWEEN:-
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. BRANCH
OFFICE STATION ROAD BALAGHAT (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI ANOOP NAIR - SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH MS.GUNJAN NAIR-
ADVOCATE)
AND
1. SASHIKALA ROKDE W/O RAMLAL ROKDE, AGED
ABOUT 53 YEARS, VILLAGE KINHI MANDIR TOLA
POST BHORGARH TEHSIL KHERLANJI DISTT.
BALAGHAT (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. VIKAS ROKDE S/O RAMLAL ROKDE, AGED
ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE KINHI MANDIR,
TOLA POST BHORGARH TEHSIL KHAIRLANI
DISTT. BALAGHAT (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. AKASH ROKDE S/O RAMLAL ROKDE, AGED
ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE KINHI MANDIR,
TOLA POST BHORGARH TEHSIL KHAIRLANI
DISTT. BALAGHAT (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. SURENDRA KANNOJE S/O DINESH KANNOJE R/O
VILLAGE LILAAMA, POST BHAURGARH TEHSIL
KHAIRLANJI DISTT. BALAGHAT (MADHYA
PRADESH)
5. KRISHNAKUMAR LILHARE S/O GODHANLAL
LILHARE R/O WARD NO. 3 KHAIRLANJI, TEHSIL
KHAIRLANJI DISTT. BALAGHAT (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 3 BY SHRI PRAVESH NAVERIYA - ADVOCATE)
Reserved on : 06.3.2024
Pronounced on: 18.6.2024
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH
MAMTANI
Signing time: 19-06-2024
18:22:04
3 MA-941-2021
----------------------------------------------------------------------
These appeals having been heard and reserved for judgment, coming
on for pronouncement this day, JUSTICE AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH
passed the following:
ORDER
Both the above appeals arise out of award dated 03.2.2021 passed by
First Additional Member Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Waraseoni, District
Balaghat in Claim Case No.01/2019 [Shashi Kala Rokade and others Vs.
Surendra Kannoje and others] whereby the Tribunal has awarded compensation
of Rs.42,45,212/- for the death of deceased-Ramlal in motor accident dated
01.12.2018.
2. Learned counsel for the claimants submitted that they filed an
appeal against impugned award seeking enhancement of Rs.8 lacs on the
ground that Tribunal has wrongly calculated the income of the deceased per
month. They further submitted that amount of Rs.8000/- towards GPF and
Rs.2000/- as GIS which are not income should not have been deducted from
the per month salary of the deceased. As per paragraph 15 of the award the
Tribunal has taken only basic salary.
3. Learned senior counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that
it is true that amount of GPF and GIS returned alongwith interest to an
employee after retirement or returned to his family members on the death of
government servant. He also submitted that Insurance Company has filed the
appeal challenging the award on the ground that respondent No.1(Shashikala -
wife of deceased) was in government service and other sons were major,
therefore, they were not dependent on the income of the deceased and hence,
no award should have been passed considering these heads. He further
4 MA-941-2021
submitted that claimants deliberately did not give information about deduction
on account of income tax as the person whose net salary is Rs.50,540/- at
particular point of time, he could not have paid Rs.1000/- income tax per month
or Rs.12000/- income tax per year.
4. Having heard learned counsel for the rival parties and considering
the record of the Tribunal it seems that Tribunal did not direct the claimants to
file income tax returns or call the accounts alongwith relevant record to assess
as to what was the income of the decease and what was the income tax paid so
as to deduct income from the annual income of deceased.
5. Accordingly, both the appeals are partly allowed to the extent that
impugned award dated 03.2.2021 is set aside. The matter is remanded to the
learned Tribunal to give opportunities to both the parties to produce evidence
regarding annual salary of the deceased and consider the same after deducting
the income tax and professional tax etc. which go into account of Government
and is not returned to government servant. On adding the amount of GPF &
GIS then calculate the net salary per month and annual salary and thereafter
passed award. It is made clear that for this purpose the Court may call the
relevant record and Officer/Accountant as a Court Witness whose expenses
shall be borne by the claimants.
6. In the result, the cases are remanded to the Tribunal. Both the
parties are directed to remain present before the Tribunal on 15.7.2024. Both
the above appeals are disposed of accordingly.
(AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH)
JUDGE
RM
5 MA-941-2021
