This appeal against the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's award challenges the methodology used to compute the deceased's income. The appellants objected to the 30% tax deduction used by the Tribunal since the actual tax paid was lower, arguing for an enhanced income figure.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, GULBARGA BENCH
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2014
BEFORE
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.32746/2013 (MV)
BETWEEN:
Both are R/o H.No. 11-5-77, Brestwarpet, Raichur – 584 101.
… APPELLANTS
(Shri Basavaraj R. Math, Advocate)
AND:
2
NEKRTC, Divisional Office, Raichur – 584 101.
… RESPONDENTS
(Shri Sudhirsingh R. Vijapur, Advocate for Respondent No.2 Notice to respondent No.1 is dispensed with vide order dated 05.03.2014)
This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under Section 173 (1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the Judgement and Award dated 23.03.2013 passed in MVC No. 152/2011 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Fast Track Court-I) at Raichur, partly allowing the claim petition seeking enhancement of compensation.
This appeal coming on for Admission this day, the Court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
The appeal coming on for admission is admitted and considered for final disposal.
calculating the compensation towards loss of future earnings in a claim by the widow and a young son of the deceased who was
a businessman and who was aged about 38 years at the time of
3
the motor accident in which he died. The year of the accident is 2009. In the claim for compensation, the income of the deceased was sought to be established by producing the Income Tax returns for the previous year of the deceased and claim for compensation of Rs.47,60,000/- was laid on the footing that he was earning on an average of Rs.5,00,000/- per annum. However, the Tribunal has found from the material produced that the gross income of the deceased was Rs.2,17,494/- and Rs.2,97,296/- in two consecutive years and has attributed an average gross income of Rs.2,57,390/- and has deducted 30% towards income tax and has arrived at a net income to Rs.1,80,173/- per annum and has further subjected the same to deduction of 1/3rd towards personal expenses and then has proceeded to compute the compensation towards loss of dependency. This is sought to be questioned by the appellants.
4
income tax. The actual tax paid in one case on Rs.2,97,296/-, was in a sum of Rs.34,698/-. Therefore, it could not be construed as being 30% of the income. If the tax paid is taken as little over 10% or about 12%, the deduction would have to be reduced to about 12% and the addition of 30% towards future prospects of increase in income also being taken into account, the income would have to be enhanced by about 18% in order to calculate the loss of dependency. If it is added to the income, it will come to Rs.3,18,000/-. The loss of dependency would be computed on the basis of the average income of Rs.3,18,000/inclusive of 30% addition towards future prospects of increase in the income. Accordingly, the appellant is entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.5,29,612/- which shall carry interest at 6% per annum from the date of claim till the date of
payment.
Sd/JUDGE
nsp
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the deduction of 30% towards income tax instead of actual tax paid was correct in computing loss of future earnings.
Whether the Tribunal was correct in deducting 1/3rd for personal expenses from the deceased's income to compute compensation.
Whether the appellants are entitled to additional compensation due to low tax rate paid by deceased compared to the 30% deduction standard.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Shashikala W/o Late Govadrhan Korekar
Harshavadrhan S/o Late Govardhan
Umesh S/o Shanmukappa
The Divisional Controller, NEKRTC
Anand Byrareddy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
