Case: Manasvi Jain Vs. Delhi Transport Cor.Ltd

2. The appellant-claimant is the son of deceased Suresh Chandra Jain who died in a road accident. He filed a claim petition before the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Dehradun seeking compensation of an amount of Rs.36,00,000/- on the basis that the deceased who was aged 55 years on the date of accident, was working as Executive Engineer with the Public Works Department of the Government of Uttarakhand and was earning a salary of Rs.26,950/- per month3. The Tribunal, after taking into account the evidence on record and also the evidence of one eyewitness to the accident, namely, Ajay Bansal (PW 2), came to the conclusion that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the bus driver—Respondent No. 2 and as such, the appellant is entitled for compensation. According to the original salary certificate of the deceased issued by the Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Uttarakhand, the gross salary of the deceased was found to be Rs.26,950/- and after various deductions towards GPF, House Rent, GIS and Income Tax, the take home salary was determined as Rs.15,784/- p.m. The Tribunal considering the fact that the deceased was 55 years old, as evidenced by the documentary evidence, applied the multiplier 8. Thus, taking into consideration his age and monthly salary at Rs.15,784/-, the Tribunal calculated the loss of dependency as Rs.10,10,176/- (2/3rd of Rs.15,784 x 12 x 8). In addition to that Rs.5,000/- was granted towards funeral expenses and Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and finally awarded Rs.10,25,176/- as compensation with interest payable @ 5% p.a. from the date of institution of claim petition till the date of payment. The Tribunal also fastened the liability of making payment of compensation on the Delhi Transport Corporation-Respondent No. 1 as the bus which caused accident belongs to them4. Against the aforesaid order of the Tribunal, both Delhi Transport Corporation as well as the appellant herein have filed their respective appeals before the High Court. The Delhi Transport Corporation pleaded that the bus was insured with National Insurance Company, therefore, the liability of making payment of compensation lies on the Insurance Company. On the other hand, the appellants appeal was for enhancement of compensation5. The High Court allowed the appeal of the Delhi Transport Corporation and directed the National Insurance Company to pay the compensation amount6. As far as the appeal filed by the appellant herein is concerned, the High Court was of the view that the amount awarded by the Tribunal as compensation was perfectly justified. It accordingly dismissed the appellants appeal7. The appellant, not satisfied with the quantum of compensation and the rate of interest awarded by the Courts below, filed this appeal

Reasoning: 12. This Court in ShyamwatiSharma & Ors. Vs. KaramSingh & Ors. (2010) 12 SCC 378 ,  while considering the issues of deduction of taxes, contributions etc., for arriving at the figure of net monthly income, held thatwhile ascertaining the income of the deceased, any deductions shown in the salary certificate as deductions towards GPF, life insurance premium, repayments of loans etc., should not be excluded from the income. The deduction towards income tax / surcharge alone should be considered to arrive at the net income of the deceased13. In the present case, there is no dispute about of the salary of the deceased. As per salary certificate, his monthly income and deductions are as under:So, from the above table, it is clear that except an amount of Rs.2,500/towards Income Tax, rest of the amounts were voluntarily contributed by the deceased for the welfare of his family. Considering the decision of this Court in ShyamwatiSharma & Ors., (supra), in our opinion, except contribution towards Income Tax, the other voluntary contributions made by the deceased, which are in the nature of savings, cannot be deducted from the monthly salary of the deceased to decide his net salary or take home salary. Hence, the take home salary of the deceased comes to Rs.24,450/which can be rounded to Rs.25,000/13. In the present case, there is no dispute about of the salary of the deceased. As per salary certificate, his monthly income and deductions are as under:So, from the above table, it is clear that except an amount of Rs.2,500/towards Income Tax, rest of the amounts were voluntarily contributed by the deceased for the welfare of his family. Considering the decision of this Court in ShyamwatiSharma & Ors., (supra), in our opinion, except contribution towards Income Tax, the other voluntary contributions made by the deceased, which are in the nature of savings, cannot be deducted from the monthly salary of the deceased to decide his net salary or take home salary. Hence, the take home salary of the deceased comes to Rs.24,450/