THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S KALYANI STEELS LTD.,

PDF · subscribers
RP/100037/2019HC KarnatakaKAHC02009754201924 September 2019Bench: S.N.SATYANARAYANA,P.G.M.PATIL7 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court modified the Tribunal's award, enhancing the compensation based on a higher multiplier and revised calculations for loss of dependency and conventional heads.

What were the facts?

The claimant's wife died in a motor accident, and the Tribunal awarded compensation. The claimant sought enhancement of compensation, while the insurer sought reduction.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the correct multiplier to be applied for calculating loss of dependency and the quantum of compensation under conventional heads.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 173(1) of MV Act, 1988

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.102469 OF 2015 C/W MFA CROSS OBJ NO.100037 OF 2019 (MV-D)

IN MFA NO.102469/2015

BETWEEN:

THE MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., SOHAN BUILDING, RAHIMATPUR BUILDING, SHANTINAGAR, KORAGAON, SATARA DISTRICT, STATE MAHARASHTRA REPRESENTED THROUGH ITS THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE, SEETA SMRUTI, P B NO. 156 MARUTI GALLI, BELAGAVI R/BY ITS ASSISTANT MANAGER. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. N.R. KUPPELLUR, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.

SRI. SUBHAS S/O. VAMAN JADHAV, AGE: 61 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE WORK, R/O. H NO. 644/1, RAJAHANSA GALLI, DIST: BELAGAVI.

2.

SHRI. PRAMOD S/O. SHASIKANT WAGH, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. H NO. 62, MADALI,

SAROJA HANGARAKI Digitally signed by SAROJA HANGARAKI Date: 2023.04.12 17:10:54 - 0700 TQ AND DIST: SATARA, STATE: MAHARASHTRA. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. GURUKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1) (NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 27.04.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.1081/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE 3RD ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND MEMBER 4TH ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BELAGAVI, AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF RS.35,79,500/- WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 8% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF DEPOSIT.

IN MFA.CROB NO.100037/2019

BETWEEN:

SRI. SUBHASH VAMAN JADHAV, AGE: 63 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE WORK, R/O: H.NO.644/1, RAJAHANSA GALLI, DIST: BELAGAVI- 590001. …CROSS OBJECTOR (BY SRI. GURUKUMAR V.A, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.

SRI. PRAMOD S/O SHASHIKANT WAGH, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: H.NO.62, MADALI, TQ AND DIST: SATARA, STATE: MAHARASHTRA.

2.

THE MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., SOHAN BUILDING, RAHIMATPUR BUILDING, SHANTINAGAR, KORAGAON, SATARA DISTRICT, STATE MAHARASHTRA. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. N.R. KUPPELLUR, ADVOCATE FOR R2) (NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)

THIS MFA.CROB IN MFA NO.102469/2015 FILED UNDER ORDER 41 RULE 22 OF CPC., 1908, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 27.04.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO. 1081/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND IV ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BELAGAVI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

THE APPEAL AND THE MFA.CROB., COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

The Tribunal in MVC.No.1081/2014 awarded compensation of Rs.35,79,500/- to the claimant who lost his wife in the accident. The Tribunal also awarded 8% per annum interest on the compensation awarded. The claimant is before this Court seeking enhancement. The insurer who has admitted the liability before this Court is seeking reduction.

2.

The deceased was aged 56 years and was a physical education teacher in Maratha Mandal PU College, Belagavi. It is claimed that the deceased was earning Rs.65,000/- per month and it is further claimed that the claimant is dependent on the income of his deceased wife. The Tribunal has awarded compensation by adopting split multiplier on the premise that the deceased was aged 56 years.

3.

Learned counsel for the claimant submits that in view of the law laid down in the case of N.JAYASREE AND OTHERS Vs. CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INS.CO.LTD., reported in 2021 ACJ 2685, the multiplier to be applied based on the age of the deceased. Under the circumstances, the compensation payable has to be assessed by taking multiplier ‘9’ instead of ‘5’ adopted by the Tribunal.

4.

It is noticed that the monthly income of the deceased as per Ex.P.24 is Rs.66,710/- and by deducting professional tax of Rs.200/-, it comes to Rs.66,510/-. Since the deceased was aged 56 years, 15% is to be added towards future prospects which comes to Rs.76,486/- [Rs.66,510 + 15% future prospects]. There is only one claimant. This Court is of the view that ½ of the income is to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased and 10% is to be deducted towards income tax. Thus, the compensation under the head of loss of dependency would be Rs.37,17,220/- [Rs.76,486 X 12 months X 9 multiplier X ½ less 10% income tax]

5.

At the same time, it is to be noticed that the compensation under the conventional heads has to be assessed following the ratio laid down in the case of NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED VS. PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680

6.

Thus, the total compensation payable would be as under:

Sl.No. Heads Amount [In Rupees] 1. Loss of dependency 37,17,220-00 2. Loss of estate 18,000-00 3. Funeral expenses 15,000-00 4. Loss of consortium 44,000-00

Total compensation 37,94,220-00

Less: awarded by Tribunal 35,79,500-00

Enhanced compensation 2,14,720-00

7.

Hence, the following ORDER (i) Accordingly, the impugned judgment and award are modified by allowing both the appeals in part.

(ii) The impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal are modified. The cross objector/claimant is held entitled to a total compensation of Rs.37,94,220/-, as against Rs.35,79,500/- awarded by the Tribunal. The enhanced compensation of Rs.2,14,720/- shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum.

(iii) The insurer shall deposit the compensation with accrued interest before the Tribunal within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment.

(iv) 60% of the compensation amount shall be released in favour of the claimant and remaining 40% is to be kept in any Nationalized bank for a period of 3 years and on maturity be released in favour of the claimant.

(v) Amount in deposit, if any, be transferred to the Tribunal.

(vi) In all other aspects, the award of the Tribunal stands.

Sd/- JUDGE

RH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 47

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →