PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2 vs. VISAKHA CONTAINER TERMINAL PVT LTD

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI M.A. No. 416 of 2018

---- Saraswati Hansda Khusi Hansda… Appellant(s). Versus 1. Manjeet Singh 2. Branch Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. 3. Ampa Hansda 4. Mali Hansda.... Respondent(s) ---- CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN.

----- For the appellant(s): Mr. Arvind Kr. Lall, Advocate. For Insurance Co.: Mr. Ashutosh Anand, Advocate. -----

08/06.07.2022: Heard the learned counsel for the parties. In this appeal, the claimants-appellants have prayed for enhancement of compensation amount so awarded in Compensation Case No. 117/2015 by the District Judge-III-cum-MVACT, Jamshedpur vide award dated 30.10.2017. 2. Considering the issue involved in this appeal and also in view of the fact that the lower court is available, I am disposing this appeal at this stage itself. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that while assessing the amount of compensation, the Tribunal assessed the monthly income of the deceased to be Rs.14,000/- per month which is erroneous and against the documentary evidence, which is on record. As per him, the deceased was an employer of TATA Motors Limited and his salary certificates for the entire year were exhibited, which suggest that his monthly take home salary cannot be less than Rs.25,000/-, thus his annual income should be calculated on the monthly income of RS.25,000/- and thereafter the Tribunal should have been proceeded to quantify the amount of compensation taking into consideration the direction given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and others, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680. He fairly submits that the Tribunal has enhanced the amount of compensation by 50% on account of future prospect, which, in fact, should be 40%. He further submits that there were four dependents of the deceased, thus the deduction should be 1/4th and not 1/3rd. 4. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that the Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the deceased to be Rs.14,000/- per month as his salary certificate shows several allowances were paid, which

-2- cannot be taken note of while computing the amount of compensation. He further submits that under the conventional head also as sum of Rs.1,30,000/- has been paid, which is more than what has been directed to be paid by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (Supra). 5. The deceased was aged about 26 years and was an employee of TATA Motors Limited. The death of the deceased in a Motor accident is not disputed. The fact that the offending vehicle bearing registration No. JH 05 AM 7641 was insured with the respondent-Insurance Company is also not disputed. There is no violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The deceased died leaving behind his wife and a minor daughter, who are the appellant Nos. 1 and 2 and his old parents, who are the performa respondent Nos. 3 and 4 before me. Also, the manner in which the accident occurred, is not disputed. 6. The only issue, to be decided is what would be the salary of the deceased. After assessing the same, the compensation should be recalculated strictly in terms of the judgment in the case of Pranay Sethi (Supra). It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that while assessing the monthly income of a deceased the gross income less the income tax should be considered. Considering the said principle, I have gone through the documentary evidence, which is on record. The pay slips of the deceased are on record, which is from March 2014 to March-2015. These pay slips were exhibited as Exts. 1 to 1/12. For the purpose of calculating the income, I am not considered the pay slips for the period February and March- 2015 because the deceased died on 8th February 2015, thus he did not work in the entire month of February 2015. Further the pay slips for the months of February 2015 and March 2015 shows some monetary benefits, which were given due to death of the deceased in the accident. Considering the other pay slips and taking average of the same, I find that the monthly income of the deceased would be Rs.20,500/- (approx.). 7. From the aforesaid amount, income tax has to be deducted, thus the monthly salary of the deceased can be assessed at Rs.18,450/-. Thus, I come to a conclusion that the monthly income of the deceased for the purpose of calculating just compensation would be Rs.18,450/-. Further, I find that there were dependents of the deceased, except the wife and minor daughter, the parents of the deceased are there. Thus deduction on account of personal expenses would be 1/4th and not 1/3rd. 8. Now the amount of compensation needs to be re-calculated, which is as follows:-

-3- Rs.18,450 x 12 x 17 (multiplier)= Rs.37,63,800/- Rs.37,63,800-Rs.9,40,950 (personal expenses)= Rs.28,22,850/- Rs.28,22,850/- + Rs.11,29,140 (future prospect)= Rs.39,51,990/- Rs.39,51,990 + Rs.70,000 (Conventional Head)= Rs.40,21,990/- Thus the total amount of compensation comes to Rs.40,21,990/- (forty lakh twenty one thousand nine hundred ninety). The Tribunal has already awarded Rs.29,86,000/-. Thus, the claimants are entitled for an additional amount of Rs. 10,35,990/- This balance amount will carry interest @ 7% per annum from 8.1.2019 when the appellants removed the office defects in this appeal. 75% of the enhanced amount should be paid to the appellant No. 1 and rest 25% of the enhanced amount should be paid to respondent No. 4, who is the mother of the deceased. The amount should be paid to the claimants, as directed above, within ten (10) weeks from today. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this appeal stands allowed. Anu/-CP.2 (ANANDA SEN, J.)