Partly allowed

U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Lucknow Thru. Regional Manager v. Rekha Pathak and Others

Allahabad HC24 Mar 2025FAFO/246/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal against a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award regarding a death case, this Court modified the compensation quantum by ordering the deduction of Rs. 2,01,000/- towards tax dues from the awarded sum and its subsequent refund to the Tribunal.

What did the court decide?

Appeal partly allowed. Appellant directed to withdraw Rs. 2,01,000/- from Tribunal. Balance compensation to be released to claimants within four weeks.

U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Lucknow Thru. Regional… — Income Tax | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:16708

¶2

Court No. - 5

¶3

Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 246 of 2023

¶4

Appellant :- U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Lucknow Thru. Regional Manager Respondent :- Rekha Pathak And Others Counsel for Appellant :- Ravindra Pratap Singh Counsel for Respondent :- Sandeep Kumar Agrawal,Sandeep Kumar Agrawal,Shivansh Agrawal

¶5

Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.

¶6

Heard Shri Ravindra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Sandeep Kumar Agarwal, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

¶7

The matter in dispute pertains to the learned Tribunal, while awarding the sum, having not made appropriate deductions towards payment of income tax which has affected the quantum. The appeal had been admitted and an interim order was passed by this Court on 02.08.2023.

¶8

For the sake of convenience, the order dated 02.08.2023 is reproduced below:

¶9

"Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned award. Notice on behalf of claimants-respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3 only has been accepted by Sri Shivansh Agrawal, learned counsel who has put in appearance on caveat.

¶10

The instant appeal has been preferred under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 against the judgment and award dated 10.05.2023 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, South, Lucknow in Claim Petition No. 731/2019, wherein in a death case a sum of Rs. 66,95,543.76/- along with 7% interest has been awarded in favour of the claimants-respondents no. 1 to 4.

¶11

The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is only confined to the quantum of compensation. It is submitted that the Tribunal while awarding the sum has not made the appropriate deductions towards the payment of income tax which has affected the quantum.

¶12

The matter requires consideration.

¶13

The appeal is admitted.

¶14

Since the respondent nos. 1 to 3 are already represented by Sri Shivansh Agrawal on caveat, accordingly, no fresh notice is required, however, let notice be issued to the respondents No. 4 and 5 returnable at an early date.

¶15

Summon the record of lower court.

¶16

Learned counsel for the appellant shall take steps within a period of one week from today.

¶17

List this matter again on 05th October, 2023 along with the record of lower court for hearing.

¶18

In the meantime, if the appellant deposits the entire amount under the impugned award within four weeks from today, after adjusting the statutory amount, deposited before this Court, the execution of the impugned award dated 10.05.2023, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, South, Lucknow in Claim Petition No. 731 of 2019, shall remain stayed, till further orders of this Court.

¶19

It is further provided that out of the aforesaid sum, 75% of the amount shall be released amongst the claimants-respondents in accordance with the impugned award. The remaining 25% of the aforesaid sum shall be invested in some nationalized bank under the Fixed Term Policy, which shall be subject to the final disposal of this appeal."

¶20

Today, learned counsels appearing for the contesting parties state that the amount of Rs.1,000/- towards the tax deducted at source should have been deducted by the learned Tribunal while ascertaining the compensation as awarded by it.

¶21

Learned counsels for the parties jointly pray that the aforesaid amount should be deducted while ascertaining the compensation, as has been awarded by the learned Tribunal, and after ascertainment, the amount of compensation would stand modified.

¶22

The contention is that the amount deposited by the appellant before the learned Tribunal is Rs.85,09,945/-. The difference with interest (regarding tax deduction at source) is Rs.2,01,000/-.

¶23

Considering the aforesaid, the appeal is partly allowed. The

¶24

appellant would be at liberty to withdraw the amount of Rs.1,76,000/- from the learned Tribunal and Rs.25,000/- as statutory deposit, which is under deposit before this Court and which would be remitted to the learned Tribunal within two weeks from today. Thus, in total, the appellant would be withdrawing an amount of Rs.2,01,000/- from the learned Tribunal while the rest of the amount under deposit would be released in favour of the claimant / respondents in accordance with law and the relevant rules, which amount would be released within a period of four weeks from the date of filing of an appropriate application in this regard.

¶25

Order Date :- 24.3.2025 S. Shivhare

¶26

Digitally signed by :- SHASHANK SHIVHARE High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Lucknow Thru. Regional Manager v. Rekha Pathak and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Lucknow Thru. Regional Manager v. Rekha Pathak and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shivam Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Secondary Education, Lko. and Others

Jeevan Bima Rashtriya Sahkari Awas Samiti Ltd. Thru. Secy. and Another Vs Addl. Registrar Sole Arbitrator Cooperative Societies U.P. Lko. and 2 Others

Smt. Veena Singh Vs M/S Mankameshwar Developers (P) Limited, Lko. Thru. Director Shri Karunesh Kumar Shukla and Others

Radhe Shyam Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Basic Edu. Deptt. Govt. of U.P. Lko. and 2 Others

Gopi Nath Nishad vs Subhash Chandra Agarwal Executive Director K.M. Sugar Mills Limited Kanpur and 2 Others

Smt. Rama Devi and 3 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and 6 Others