Smt. Indrawati Devi And 2 Others V. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Through Divisional Manager And Another

FAFO/753/2018

AI Insights

This case involves an appeal by Smt. Indrawati Devi and others against New India Assurance Co. Ltd. concerning a compensation award following a motor vehicle accident under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The appellants contested the compensation amount awarded by the lower court, arguing that the deceased's salary was inaccurately recorded and that income tax was improperly deducted from the compensation for future prospects. They also argued that the compensation for loss of estate, consortium, and funeral expenses was insufficient. The High Court of Allahabad, after reviewing the evidence and arguments, upheld the lower court's decision, dismissing the appeal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 798841 (HC-ALLAHABAD)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 19-02-2018
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Assessee Lawyers: NEERJA SINGH; SHARVE SINGH
• Keywords: Compensation; Funeral expenses; Future prospects; Income tax deduction; Loss of consortium; Loss of estate; Salary discrepancy
• Section: 173

Judgement Text

"1 Court No. - 34 Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 753 of 2018 Appellant :- Smt. Indrawati Devi And 2 Others Respondent :- New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Through Divisional Manager And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Neerja Singh, Sharve Singh Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J. Hon'ble Harsh Kumar, J. 1. Heard Ms. Neerja Singh, Advocate, for appellants and perused the record. 2. This appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1988”) has arisen from judgment and award dated 23.10.2017 passed by Sri Ramesh Chand-I, Additional District Judge, Court No. 5, Allahabad allowing Claim Petition No. 672 of 2015 of appellants and awarding compensation of Rs. 56,46,265/- to appellants along with 7 per cent interest. 3. The award has been assailed on two grounds, firstly that salary of deceased was Rs. 78,277/- per month and Court below has awarded compensation by taking salary of deceased as Rs. 76,040/-. It is further contended that on future prospects, income tax has been deducted though it ought not to have been deducted. 4. Court below has examined the matter of salary of appellant and on the basis of salary slips of April to July, 2015, produced before it as Paper No. 40C/2 to 40C/17 and has recorded a finding holding that monthly salary at the time of accident of deceased was 76,040/- as under: ^^bl lanHkZ es i=koyh ds voyksdu ls Li\"V gS fd ;kphi{k }kjk e`rd ';ke/kj dk nq?kZVuk ds le; egkukjk;u 'kqDyk bUVjehfM,V dkyst cjkSr bykgkckn esa fizUliy ds in ij dk;Zjr gksuk rFkk izfrekg 78]000@& :i;s vk; vftZr djus dk c;ku fn;k x;k gS rFkk leFkZu esa dkxt la[;k&40x@2 yxk;r 40x@17 Nk;kizfrfyfi osru iphZ vizSy 2015 ls ekg tqykbZ 2015 vkfn izLrqr fd;k x;k gSA ftlesa e`rd ';ke/kj dk ekg twu 2015 esa fizUliy ds in ij 2 egkukjk;u 'kqDyk bUVjehfM,V dkyst cjkSr bykgkckn esa rSukr gksuk rFkk 76]040@& :i;s izfrekg osru izkIr djuk nf'kZr gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa foi{kh chek dEiuh ds fo}ku vf/koDrk }kjk izLrqr mijksDr rdZ esa dksbZ cy ugha ik;k tkrk gS rFkk ;kphx.k }kjk bl lUnHkZ esa tks ekSf[kd ,oa nLrkosth lk{; izLrqr fd;k x;k gS mlls e`rd ';ke/kj dk nq?kZVuk ds le; vadu 76]040@& :i;s osru izkIr fd;s tkus ds dFku dh iqf\"V gksrh gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa U;k;kf/kdj.k }kjk e`rd ';ke/kj dh vk; nq?kZVuk ds le; vadu 76]040@& :i;s izfrekg fu/kkZfjr fd;k tkrk gSA** “In this respect, it is clear from perusal of the record that the petitioners have stated the deceased Shyam Dhar to have been posted on the post of Principal, Mahanarayan Shukla Intermediate College, Baraut, Allahabad on payment of RS 78,000/- per month at the time of accident and have in support thereof produced the photocopies of pay slips from April, 2015 to July, 2015 being paper nos 40ga/2 to 40ga/17 which show deceased Shyam Dhar to have been posted on the post of Principal in Mahanarayan Shukla Intermediate College, Baraut Allahabad in June 2015, thereby earning Rs 76040/- per month as salary. In this circumstance, no substance is found in the aforesaid contention of the learned counsel for respondent insurance company; and the oral and documentary evidences adduced by the petitioners in the matter confirm a sum of Rs 76040/- to have been paid as salary to deceased Shyam Dhar at the time of accident. In this circumstance, this tribunal fixes deceased Shyam Dhar's income to be Rs 76040/- per month at the time of accident.” (English Translation by Court) 5. Nothing has been placed before this Court to show that aforesaid finding recorded by Court below is perverse. 6. So far as deduction of income tax on future prospects is concerned, it cannot be disputed that same is also an income, and, therefore, on notional income of future prospects, tax has to be paid. 7. Coming to last aspect, it is contended that under the heads of 3 loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses, only 25,000/- has been awarded though it should have been higher. 8. Looking to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find that compensation awarded by Court below is unjust or illegal so as to justify a decree of reversal. 9. The appeal lacks merits. Dismissed at the stage of hearing under Order 41 Rule 11 C.P.C. Dt. 19.02.2018 PS "