PR. COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX vs. SRI. M.R. PADMAVATHY TRUST

SRI K.V. RANGARAJU, S/O LATE VARADA TATACHAR, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,

SMT.R.SINDHU D/O SRI.K.V.RANGARAJU, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,

SRI.ASHWATH S/O NARASIMHEGOWDA,

K.V. RANGARAJU, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, S/O LATE VARADA TATACHAR,

SMT.R.SINDHU

ASHWATH AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,

The brief facts of the case stated are:- (a) Smt.Geetha Bai First Division Assistant in Mysuru Court, being the victim of the vehicular accident involving a KSRTC bus bearing registration No.KA09-F- 4745 died at the spot on 08.04.2013 at Mysuru. Her widower and her the then unmarried daughter had filed the claim petition in MVC No.811/2013 which was stoutly opposed by the KSRTC by filing the Written Statement.

To prove their claim, the 1st claimant widower K.V. Rangaraju was examined as PW.1 and in his evidence, 11 documents came to be marked as per exhibits P1 to P11 which included the police papers, RTO papers, medical papers and the salary certificate. To

The MACT looking to the pleadings of the parties and after assessing the evidentiary material on record, has entered the judgment and award that are in challenge both by the owner of the vehicle and the claimants.

Sri.K. Nagaraja, the panel counsel for the appellant- KSRTC firstly contends that the first claimant widower himself being employed in a different place admittedly, cannot be a dependent of the deceased and therefore, no compensation could have been awarded under the head ‘loss of dependency’; secondly, he submits that the MACT grossly erred in deducting from the salary only 1/3rd as per personal expenses when it ought to have been 3/4th in view of the Division Bench

Sri.P.Nataraju, the learned counsel for the claimants, pressing his Cross Objections, per contra, contends that the MACT has grossly erred in taking Rs.23,000/- to be the salaried income of the deceased when it ought to have taken the gross salary i.e., Rs.34,000/-; the Tribunal erred in not adding 15 % to the established salary in view of Pranay Sethi’s case and lastly, the Tribunal erred in invoking the doctrine of

I have heard the learned counsel for the KSRTC and the learned counsel for the claimants; I have perused the appeal papers and also the original papers from the Lower Court Records. 8. The contention of Sri.K. Nagaraja, the learned panel counsel for the KSRTC that the employed widower of the deceased victim is not a dependent and therefore, no compensation could have been awarded under the head ‘loss of dependency’ pales into insignificance since the second claimant the daughter of the deceased is there in the array of parties. The second contention that the daughter having been married even though subsequent to the accident, could not have been the dependent, is liable to be rejected since at the time of accident, she was not married, and the right to compensation for the loss of dependency accrues by virtue of and on the date of accident.

The learned panel counsel for the KSRTC submits that the Tribunal ought to have taken only 1/4th of the income of the deceased since her widower, the first claimant was also admittedly in the employment, for the purpose of working out the compensation under the head ‘loss of dependency’. He banks upon para 21 of the judgment in Manavalagan’s case, which reads as under: “Para 21: We will now return to the facts of this case. In this case, as noticed above, the husband was living in Coimbatore and the wife was living near a place of her work (Tiruppur). Therefore, the husband (Appellant) had a separate establishment at Coimbatore and was living from his income. The wife (deceased) was having a separate establishment at Sowripalyam near Tiruppur and was living from her income. As the parties were residing at different places and were supporting themselves from their respective income, as noticed above, the question of loss of dependency will not arise. In such circumstances, the amount spent towards the expenses of living and personal expenses of the deceased can safely be taken as three-fourth of her income. The balance of one-fourth will be her saving or contribution to the common saving pool.”

The learned counsel for the claimants stoutly submits that it has long been held by the Halsbury in

In Manavalagan’s Case, both the husband and the wife were employed in and residing at two distinct and distant places, whereas in the present case, though both the husband and wife were employed in two different establishments, the distance between them being travellably short, they were sharing the common abode. Therefore, the said decision does not come to the aid of the appellant-KSRTC. Consequently, one half deduction has to be made from the salary of the

Sri.K. Nagaraja, the panel counsel further submits that even otherwise also, the widower of the deceased himself being in the employment, does not have right to seek compensation under the head ‘loss of dependency’. The counsel for the claimants stoutly answers that even if the widower is left out, still the 2nd claimant being the unmarried daughter at the time of the accident, is entitled to the compensation. There is force in this submission and therefore, the contention advanced on behalf of the appellant-KSRTC is rejected.

Sri.K.Nagaraja, learned counsel next contends that the MACT ought to have taken one half of the salary as the expenses, whereas it has wrongly taken only 1/3rd by way of deduction from the salary of the deceased. The counsel for the claimants though initially opposed the same, now fairly concedes that it

Lastly, K. Nagaraja, the learned counsel contends and this Court thinks rightly that the compensation of Rs.1,55,000/- awarded under the Conventional Heads is far in excess of what is prescribed by the Apex Court as maximum in Pranay Sethi’s Case and therefore, the same is scaled down to Rs.70,000/- from Rs.1,55,000/-, disregarding the objections of the claimants side.

The learned counsel for the claimants pressing his Cross-Objections into service contends that the Tribunal has taken only Rs.23,000/- as the income from the salary, whereas the undisputed salary certificate at exhibit P.18, specifically points out that the gross salary of the deceased was Rs.34,070/-. The counsel for the KSRTC points out that though it is a gross salary, certain compulsory deductions such as TDS under the Income Tax Act and the professional tax