THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7 vs. M/S TECHNOTREE CONVERGENCE LTD

In respect of the death of Sri.Mudalaiah as a result of a motor cycle accident, the Tribunal by determining the monthly income of the deceased at the rate of Rs.19,081/- per month and has awarded the following sums: Sl. No. Particulars Amount in (Rs.) 1. Loss of Dependency 15,79,968-00 2. Loss of Consortium 40,000-00 3. Loss of estate 15,000-00 4. Funeral and transportation e penses 15,000-00

The claimants are in appeal seeking for enhancement, principally on the ground that the Tribunal has committed a mistake in deducting about Rs.7,000/- from the net pay and the entire net pay ought to have been taken into consideration for the purpose of calculating the compensation. 3. The insurer has also filed cross objection contending that the Tribunal ought to have adopted the split multiplier, since the deceased had only one year of service left and the award of interest at the rate of 9% per annum was on the higher side. 4. The pay slip which was produced before the Tribunal at Ex.P17 indicates that the claimant was getting the following sums: Earnings Amount Deductions Amount Others Amount Basic Pay 15250.00 PT 200.00 BbmpSc StSoc.C on 4350.00 DA 6596-00 EWF 30.00 BbmpPk Soc. Con 3500.00 HRA 4575.00 Benevolent 10.00

The Tribunal has correctly added 15% of the salary towards future prospects, deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses and applied multiplier of ‘9’ and therefore, the claimant would be entitled to a sum of [(Rs.26,931+15%- 1/3rd) = Rs.20,647/- x 12 x 9 = Rs.22,29,876/-. 6. The argument of the learned counsel for the insurer that a split multiplier would have to be adopted cannot be accepted. The Apex Court has stated that only in exceptional cases, the split multiplier concept will have to be adopted. It is to be kept in mind, that a deceased was a Poura Karmika and even after he attaining the age of 60 years, he would engage himself in some activities to earn his livelihood. 7. In that view of the matter, the application of split multiplier as advocated by the learned counsel for the insurer is untenable. 8. Learned counsel for the insurer contends that 10% would have to be deducted as Income Tax. The deceased was employed by BBMP. If the deceased had the liability to pay Income Tax, necessarily, the BBMP would have deducted the same from his income. Since no Income Tax has been deducted from the employer BBMP, it will have to be assumed that the deceased did not have any liability to pay income tax and was entitled to the entire sum that was paid to him from his employer. 9. In addition the claimants being the wife and two sons would each be entitled to Rs.44,000/- towards ‘loss of consortium’ ie., (Rs.44,000 x 3) = Rs.1,32,000/- and also a sum of Rs.33,000/- under the ‘conventional heads’. 10. Consequently the award of the Tribunal is modified and the claimant would be entitled to the following compensation: Sl. No. Particulars Amount in (Rs.) 1. Loss of Dependency 22,29,876.00 2. Loss of Consortium 1,32,000.00 3. Conventional heads 33,000.00

Thus, the *appeal and the cross objection are allowed in part. The claimant is entitled to an enhanced compensation of (Rs.23,94,768 - Rs.16,49,968) = Rs.7,44,908/-. 12. The Tribunal has awarded interest of 9% per annum. However, it would be appropriate to adopt the interest at the rate of 6% per annum. *Corrected vide chamber order dated:02.03.2023.

The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 14. The amount in deposit shall be transferred to MACT for disbursal in terms of the impugned award.