Disposed

National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Abanti Borah and Anr.

Gauhati HC4 Apr 2019MACApp./194/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court disposed of an appeal concerning motor accident compensation. The Court held that while conveyance allowance is part of emoluments and need not be deducted, income tax must be deducted as it is not actual income enjoyed by the deceased. The Court directed the appellant to deposit the adjusted balance ahead of the Tribunal.

What did the court decide?

Appellant to deposit the adjusted compensation amount (total awarded minus 20% initial deposit by them) after deducting Rs. 30/- income tax, with interest at 9% per annum.

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Abanti Borah and Anr. — Motor Accident Claims | Gauhati HC (2019)

¶1

Page No.# 1/6

¶2

GAHC010125752014

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶4

Case No. : MACApp. 194/2014

¶5

1:NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD

¶6

SUBSIDIARY OF GENERAL INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA REGISTERED HEAD OFFICE AT 3, MIDDLETON STREET, CALCUTTA 700071 REPRESENTED BY THE ASSTT. MANAGER, GAUHATI REGIONAL OFFICE , BHANGAGARH, GUWAHATI 781006

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

1:ABANTI BORAH and ANR

¶9

W/O LT. PRADIP BORAH, R/O VILL. KERANIPAM, P.O. ITAKHOLA, P.S. JAMUGURI, DIST. SONITPUR, ASSAM.

¶10

2:AMARJYOTI RAJKHOWA S/O SRI RASHA KT. RAJKHOWA R/O KUSUMTALA P.O. KUSUMTALA DIST. SONITPUR ASSAM

¶11

Advocate for the Petitioner : MSS ACHARJEE

¶12

Advocate for the Respondent : MR.M DUTTA

¶13

Page No.# 2/6

¶14

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NELSON SAILO

¶15

ORDER

¶16

Date : 04-04-2019

¶17

Heard R. D. Mozumdar, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard

¶18

Mr. M. Dutta, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1. None appears for the respondent No. 2.

¶19

The appellant being aggrieved with the judgment dated 19.10.2012 passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sonitpur in MAC Case No. 1/2010 has preferred the instant appeal.

¶20

Brief facts of the case is that the respondent No. 1 as claimant filed a claim for compensation before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sonitpur on account the death of her husband on 20.10.2009 in a motor accident on 19.10.2009. The deceased was knocked down by one vehicle bearing registration No. AS-12F/9017 (Alto LX) which was coming from Dhekiajuli towards Mission Chariali side, driven by the respondent No. 2. Despite the deceased being evacuated to the hospital immediately, he succumbed to his injuries on 20.10.2009. The deceased was 47 years of age at the time of the accident and he was working as Head Teacher of

¶21

No. 1, Tengabasti Sivapuri L. P. School earning a monthly salary of

¶22

Page No.# 3/6

¶23

Rs.13,075/- and having a family consisting his wife (respondent No. 1/claimant), 3 dependent sons who were all students and an old aged father. The respondent No. 1, therefore, filed the claim for compensation before Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sonitpur claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.16 lakhs. The claim was contested by the appellant as opposite party No. 2 by filing written statement. The respondent No. 1 in order to establish her claim examined two witnesses while the appellant did not examine any witness. Consequently, learned Tribunal vide the impugned judgment, awarded a sum of Rs.13,52,978/- as compensation to the respondent No. 1 along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim i.e. 05.01.2010 till realization.

¶24

Ms. R. D. Mozumdar, learned counsel for the appellant submits that in view of the evolving law with regard to claims arising out of motor accident, she will only press ground ‘F’ of the memorandum of appeal. She submits that the grievance of the appellant is that the learned Tribunal at page No. 8 of the judgment while intending to deduct a sum of Rs.638/from the income of the deceased only deducted only a sum of Rs.208/instead. By relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Indira Srivastava and Ors., reported in (2008) 2 SCC 763, she submits that while computing the net earnings

¶25

Page No.# 4/6

¶26

of the deceased, travelling allowances and deductions made towards income tax cannot be included. Therefore, the learned Tribunal should have deducted Rs.30/- as shown to be the income tax payable by the deceased and Rs.350/- given to him towards conveyance allowance as shown in his employment data and exhibited as the Ext.-6 before the Tribunal. She submits that by making such deductions, the amount payable to the respondent No. 1 will be Rs.62,000/- less.

¶27

Mr. M. Dutta, learned counsel, on the other hand submits that the allowances such as conveyance allowance, Medical allowance etc., are only a part of the income of an employee. However, he agrees that the income tax deducted from the employee cannot be included for computing the amount of compensation entitled to the respondent No. 1.

¶28

I have heard the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and I have perused materials available on record.

¶29

From a perusal of Ext.-6, it may be seen that the deceased was given conveyance allowance @ Rs.350/- besides House Rent Allowance, City Compensatory allowance etc. Conveyance allowance in my considered view would only mean an allowance to enable the employee concerned to attend his duty and therefore it will only be a part of his monthly

¶30

Page No.# 5/6

¶31

emoluments. As such, I am of the considered view that the learned Tribunal rightly did not deduct the same while computing compensation payable to the respondent No. 1. In so far as the income tax is concerned, the same will only be deductable as it is not an income enjoyed by the employee. Therefore, the sum of Rs.30/- ought to have been deducted by the Tribunal. In the result, I am considered view that besides the deduction of Rs.30/- from the monthly salary of the deceased, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal should be maintained. It is ordered accordingly.

¶32

The respondent No. 1 shall be entitled to compensation as follows:-

¶33

Annual loss of dependency = 1,02,696

¶34

Medical expenses =810 2. Funeral expenses =2,000 3. Loss of consortium =5,000 4. Loss of estate =2,000 5. Loss of love and affection =5,000

¶35

=13,49,858/-

¶36

The learned counsels for the parties submit that the Insurance

¶37

Page No.# 6/6

¶38

Company in the meantime had deposited 50% awarded amount before

¶39

the Registry of this Court which has since been withdrawn by the respondent No. 1. In that view of the matter, the appellant shall deposit the balance amount i.e. 50% of Rs.13,49,858/- before the MACT, Sonitpur after making necessary adjustments if any along with interest @ 9% per annum on the said amount w.e.f. 05.01.2010 till realization.

¶40

With the above observations and directions, the appeal stands disposed of.

¶41

Registry to send back the LCR immediately.

¶42

JUDGE

¶43

Comparing Assistant

National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Abanti Borah and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Abanti Borah and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs Musstt Marufa Begum and 2 Ors.

Smt. Kamaleswari Das Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Smti. Lipika Mondal Barman and 2 Ors. Vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and 2 Ors.

John Rammawia Vs State of Mizoram

Bakul Chetia Vs National Insurance Co. Ltd. and 5 Ors.

New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Vs Smt. Babita Singh @ Singha and 6 Ors.