Lalitha and Others vs Uday Kumar and Others

A.S. Bopanna, J.—The appellants who are the wife and children of the deceased B. Srinivasulu, are before this Court seeking enhancement of compensation as against the sum awarded in MVC No. 987/2013.

The facts relating to the accident having occurred and husband of the first claimant having succumbed to the injuries suffered in the said accident is not in dispute. The question for consideration herein is with regard to appropriate income to be reckoned for the purpose of calculating loss of dependency'' and also the amount that is required to be awarded under the conventional heads.

The deceased was working as a First Division Assistant in the Office of the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Bellary. The salary certificate issued by the said office was marked as Ex. P.9. The net amount indicated therein is Rs. 27,232/-. The Tribunal though has reckoned the said amount after deducting 1/3rd from the same for personal expenses has not considered any amount towards loss of future prospects''. Further, from the total compensation derived, a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- has been deducted towards income tax and therefore the said method adopted by the Tribunal is not justified.

The law is well settled that from the net pay, only the amount which is indicated therein as statutory deduction could be deducted. In Ex. P9, an amount of Rs. 200/- is indicated as deduction towards Professional Tax and no amount has been shown as deduction towards income tax. It is no doubt true that before the Tribunal, there was no material whatsoever to indicate the details with regard to the income tax and it is in that circumstance, the Tribunal has assumed that some amount is to be deducted towards income tax.

During the pendency of this appeal, the appellants have filed a memo enclosing thereto Form No. 16 which has been issued. From the same, it is seen that the income after allowable deductions is below the taxable limits and therefore no amount has been deducted towards income tax.

In that light, if the amount of Rs. 200/- is deducted, the income that could be taken for the purpose of calculating the loss of dependency'' would be in a sum of Rs. 27,032/-. Keeping in view the remaining service, since 15% of the same would have to be added towards ''future prospects,'' it would amount to Rs. 4,054/-. Therefore, the total income that is to be reckoned would be in a sum of Rs. 31,006/-. On deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses, the monthly loss of dependency'' would be in a sum of Rs. 20,724/-. If the appropriate multiplier of 11 is taken into consideration and the loss of dependency'' is calculated, it would be in a sum of Rs. 27,35,568/-. We award the said amount towards the loss of dependency''.

In respect of the amount under the conventional heads, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 45,000/-. Though the learned counsel for the appellants has sought to rely on the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh and Others Vs. Rajbir Singh and Others, for considering the manner of award of the amount under the conventional heads, we are of the opinion that it would be appropriate to award a further sum of Rs. 75,000/- in addition to the amount awarded by the Tribunal. Hence, under the conventional heads, the total amount would be in a sum of Rs. 1,20,000/-.

Therefore, the appellants would be entitled to the total compensation of Rs. 28,55,568/- with interest at the same rate as awarded by the Tribunal.

The apportionment of the enhanced amount shall be done in the same proportion as has been directed by the Tribunal and appropriate deposits shall also be made in relation to the same proportion that has been indicated by the Tribunal. The enhanced amount shall be deposited by the Insurance Company within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

In terms of the above, the appeal stands disposed of.