AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BISWAJIT PALIT
This appeal under Section 173 of M.V. Act is preferred challenging the judgment and award dated 04.09.2023 delivered by Learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gomati Judicial District, Udaipur, in connection with case No. T.S.(MAC) 5 of 2021.
Heard Learned Counsel, Mr. S. Chakraborty appearing on behalf of the appellant-Insurance Company and also heard Learned Counsel, Mr. A. Acharjee appearing on behalf of the respondent-claimant-petitioners.
Taking part in the hearing, Learned Counsel for the appellant first of all drawn the attention of the Court that in this case the FIR was lodged against an unknown auto rickshaw and accordingly, a case was registered although after completion of investigation, the I.O. laid charge-sheet against the owner-cum-driver namely, one Rahim Miah. It was further submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company that, although the learned Trial Court had considered the father to be a dependent, but the deduction towards personal and living expenses should, in fact, be one-third (1/3) of the deceased’s income. Furthermore, in pursuance of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Sarla Verma at the time of determination of compensation no deduction has been made regarding tax, professional tax of the deceased for which judgment needs to be interfered with.
He further submitted that Learned Tribunal awarded Rs.50,000/- towards the minor who suffered loss of love, care, affection and guidance of the father. But there is no scope to award any compensation towards the aforesaid head and i.e. beyond the principle of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi judgment. So, Learned Counsel urged for interference of the judgment rendered by Learned Tribunal below and for remanding back the matter to the Learned Tribunal again for redetermination of the compensation after deducting the tax and other components.
On the other hand, Learned Counsel for the respondent-claimants submitted that there was no infirmity in the judgment delivered by Learned Tribunal. Further, Learned Counsel for the owner submitted that there was no infirmity in the judgment delivered the Learned Tribunal.
Considered.
Heard Learned Counsel for the parties. Now let us narrate herein below the subject matter of the claim-petition filed by the respondent-claimant-petitioners before the Learned Tribunal, Gomati District, Udaipur:
Respondent No.1 is the wife of the deceased. Respondent No.2 is the daughter of the deceased. Respondent No.3 is the mother of the deceased and respondent No.4 is the father of the deceased. According to the claimants, on 08.01.2019 at about 11 p.m. when the husband of the respondent-petitioner No.1, Tanmoy Rudra Paul was returning back to home from the side of Tepania, Udaipur by riding his motor bike bearing No.TR-03-G-5354 and on the way when he reached near Police Line Chowmuhani on Agartala-Udaipur main road, his bike was dashed by an auto rickshaw bearing No.TR-03-A-2795 (Auto Rickshaw) which was coming from the opposite direction and as a result of which the accident took place. Due to the accident, he sustained fatal injuries on his person and he was taken to Gomati District Hospital from where considering the nature of his injuries he was referred to AGMC and GBP Hospital at Agartala. At GBP Hospital he was admitted as an indoor patient and on the following day, i.e. on 09.01.2020 he succumbed to his injuries. According to the respondent-claimant-petitioners, the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing No.TR-03-A-2795 by its driver and in this regard, a police case bearing No.06 of 2020 under Sections 279/304A of IPC was registered at R.K. Pur P.S.
It was further submitted that at the time of accident the deceased was 27 years old and he was serving as a Constable of Police, under Department of Home, Govt. of Tripura and was drawing salary at the rate of Rs.27,795/- per month. It was further submitted that the deceased was the sole earning member of his family and the petitioners were dependent upon his income. So, the respondent-claimant-petitioners filed the claim-petition for granting of compensation.
The respondent-Insurance Company, i.e. the appellant herein filed written statement and also the owner-cum-driver filed written statement but before the Tribunal save and except the respondent-claimants and the O.P. owner, the present appellant did not adduce any oral/documentary evidence on record. So, based upon the evidence on record, the Learned Tribunal delivered the judgment/award which has been challenged by the appellant-Insurance Company to this Court.
Perused the judgment of the Learned Tribunal. At the time of hearing, Learned Counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company referring the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court tried to draw the attention of the Court that no P-Tax and I-Tax was deducted by the Tribunal at the time of determination of compensation. But in this regard, before the Learned Tribunal nothing was submitted by the appellant-Insurance Company. Learned Tribunal determined the compensation treating the monthly income of the deceased @ Rs. 27,795/- per month. On perusal of the salary slip (Exhibit-7), it appears that in the salary slip only P-Tax was deducted but no Income Tax was shown to be deducted. Probably the deceased was not an assesse under the purview of the Income Tax Act. Even at the time of cross-examination of the claimant-petitioner not a single question was raised from the side of the appellant-Insurance Company regarding deduction of tax. Even to substantiate the contention no oral/documentary evidence was adduced by the appellant-Insurance Company. So, this plea taken by Learned Counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted at this stage. Furthermore, regarding entitlement of the father it was submitted that no such plea was taken according to Learned Counsel for the appellant by the claimants that the father was depending upon the income of the deceased. Rather on perusal of the examination-in-chief-in-affidavit of the claimant-petitioners i.e. PW1, said PW1 in the affidavit specifically stated that apart from the other claimants the parents of the deceased were also depending upon the income of the deceased. As already stated, the appellant-Insurance Company regarding dependency of the father did not ask any question to the claimant-petitioner regarding his dependency and also to deny the said fact no documentary evidence on record is adduced by the appellant-Insurance Company before the Tribunal that the father was not depending upon the income of the deceased. So, this two points as raised by Learned Counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted. However, at submitted by Learned Counsel for the appellant Rs.50,000/- was awarded by the Learned Tribunal towards love, care, affection and guidance to the respondent-claimant petitioners. But in this regard, no conventional heads were found to award the said amount because at the time of determination of compensation future prospects, dependency, conventional amounts were considered by the Learned Tribunal. Thus, it appears that the said amount was given without application of proper mind. So, the same amount needs to be deducted from the total amount awarded by the Tribunal.
Thus, after deduction of Rs.50,000/- the total amount of compensation comes to (Rs.65,16,000/-) – (Rs. 50,000/-)=Rs.64,66,000/-. The respondent-claimants are only entitled to the said amount from the appellant-Insurance Company.
In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant-Insurance Company is partly allowed with modification that the appellant-Insurance Company shall pay the aforesaid amount of Rs.64,66,000/- to the claimant-petitioners within a period of two months from the date of passing of this judgment with 6% interest from the date of filing the claim-petition i.e. w.e.f. 15.01.2021 to till the date of actual payment to the Learned Tribunal below from the date of receipt of the copy of this judgment/order. The order of the Learned Tribunal in respect of disbursement of amount to the claimant petitioners are not interfered with.
Send down the record to the Learned Tribunal below along with a copy of this judgment/order. Also supply a copy of this judgment to Learned Counsel for the appellant and Learned Counsel for the respondent-claimant petitioners for their information and necessary action.
With this observation, this present appeal stands disposed of.
Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.