Partly allowed

Smt Ummed Devi and Others v. Gopal and Others

Rajasthan HC7 Jan 2019CMA/4512/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court enhanced motor accident compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The Court held that a flat 30% deduction for income tax was erroneous. Correcting the tax calculation based on the applicable 2009-10 slabs and applying the future prospects addition, the Court increased the compensation to Rs. 30,11,368/- plus interest.

What did the court decide?

Impugned award modified; compensation enhanced to Rs. 30,11,368/- plus interest. Insurance company to deposit amount and invest share in fixed deposit yielding monthly interest.

Smt Ummed Devi and Others Vs Gopal and Others — Motor Accident Claims | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 4512/2012

¶3

Smt. Ummed Devi w/o Hansraj aged 29 years

¶4

Manish s/o Hansraj, aged 10 years

¶5

Sunny s/o Hansraj, aged 5 years

¶6

No. 2 and 3 are minors through their Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Ummed Devi w/o Hansraj.

¶7

4.Smt. Narbada Devi W/o. Malaram, aged 58 years.

¶8

5.Malaram S/o Arjun Lal, aged 63 Years

¶9

All by caste meena, resident of Shukallabas, Police Station, Pragpura, Tehsil Kotputli, Distt. Jaipur at present Residing at Dhani Shankla Ki, Tan Purshottam Pura, Tehsil Kotputli, Distt. Jaipur

¶10

----Claimants/Appellants

¶11

Versus

¶12

Gopal s/o Ganpatram, by caste Gurjar, resident of Torda Gujran, Police Station, Paragpura, Tehsil Kotputli, Distt. Jaipur (Driver Vehicle Maruti Zen No.DL-4CH-1922)

¶13

Suresh Nayar S/o T.N. Nayar, by caste Nayar, resident of 820, Sector-22-B, Gurgaon, Haryana (Registered Owner Vehicle Maruti Zen No. DL-4CH-1922)

¶14

3.Akilesh Swami S/o Moti Lal Swami, by caste Swami, Resident of Ward No.28, Mohalla Sarai, Kasba, Kotputli, Distt. Jaipur (Power of Attorney owner vehicle Maruti Zen No.DL-4CH-1922) 4.National Insurance Company Ltd. through its Regional Manager, Regional Office at, M.I. Road, Jaipur (Insurance Company of Vehicle Maruti Zen No.DL-4CH-1922)

¶15

----Non-Claimant-Respondents

¶16

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Gaurav Gupta For Respondent(s) : Mr. Tripurari Sharma

¶17

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH GUPTA Judgment / Order

¶18

07/01/2019

¶19

This appeal for enhancement of compensation is directed against the judgment and award dated 06.08.2012 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kotputli

¶20

(2 of 4)

¶21

[CMA-4512/2012]

¶22

(for short ‘the tribunal’) in claim petition No.287/2009, whereby, the tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.21,52,536/- as compensation along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realisation.

¶23

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the tribunal has grossly erred in deducting 30% from the income of the deceased towards income tax. The income tax should have been deducted as per the prevalent rate for the same at the relevant time.

¶24

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No.4-insurance company has opposed the appeal.

¶25

I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶26

The claim-petition was filed by the claimants under Section 166/140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “The Act of 1988”) seeking compensation on account of death of Hansraj in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 24.05.2009. The tribunal assessed the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.14,137/-. Admittedly, the deceased was aged between 31 to 35 years at the time of accident and had a permanent job. Therefore, in view of the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs.

¶27

Pranay Sethi & Ors., reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157, an addition of 50% is to be added towards future prospects of the deceased, which comes to Rs.7,069/-. Thus, the income of the deceased comes to Rs.21,205/- (14,137+7,068) i.e.

¶28

(3 of 4)

¶29

[CMA-4512/2012]

¶30

Rs.2,54,460/- per annum. Keeping in view the number of dependents, one fourth of the said income is to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased. Keeping in view the age of the deceased, multiplier of 16 is liable to be applied to work out the dependency of the claimants. The tribunal deducted Rs.6,361/- @ 30% towards income tax. However, at the relevant time, rate of income tax to be charged for different income slabs for the financial year 2009-10 was as under:-

¶31

Income	Tax Rate
Upto 160,000	Nil
160,000 to 300,000	10% of the amount exceeding 160,000
300,000 to 500,000	Rs.14,000 + 20% of the amount exceeding 300,000
500,000 & above	Rs.54,000 + 30% of the amount exceeding 500,000

¶32

As the yearly income of the deceased is assessed as Rs.2,54,460/-, the amount of Rs.1,60,000/- was not taxable according to the table mentioned above. Hence, the taxable amount comes to Rs.94,460/-(254460-160000). As per the table above, 10% of the said income is liable to be deducted towards income tax. Thus, the income of the deceased comes to Rs.2,45,114/- (2,54,560-9,446). In this way, the amount of compensation comes to Rs.29,41,368/- (245114x3/4x16). The claimants would be further entitled to receive a sum of Rs.70,000/- towards conventional heads. Thus, the total amount of compensation receivable by the claimants comes to Rs.30,11,368/-(2941368+70,000).

¶33

The appeal filed by the claimants is partly allowed. Impugned award dated 06.08.2012 is modified to the extent that the compensation amount receivable by the claimants is

¶34

(4 of 4)

¶35

[CMA-4512/2012]

¶36

Rs.30,11,368/- instead of Rs.21,52,536/- as awarded by the Tribunal. Remaining terms and conditions of the award shall be the same. The Insurance Company shall deposit the enhanced amount along with the interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till date of payment with the Tribunal within a period of three months from today. It is ordered that the share of the enhanced amount of the compensation shall be invested in fixed deposit with a nationalised bank initially for a period of 2 years and the interest accrued thereon shall be paid to the claimants on monthly basis.

¶37

(PRAKASH GUPTA),J

¶38

Mohit39

Smt Ummed Devi and Others v. Gopal and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Ummed Devi and Others v. Gopal and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raj State Road Transport Cor Vs Smt Sushila Bai and Ors.

Raj State Road Transport Cor Vs Smt Kamlesh Bai and Ors.

Raj State Road Transport Cor Vs Devlal Bairwa and Ors.

Shankar Lal Vs Reliance Gen Insurance Co. Ltd. and Others

Smt Rajan Devi and Ors. Vs Sajjan Singh and Ors.

Shiv Kumar Ranasariya Vs Chhaju Ram Pansari and Others