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:
Monthly Income Rs. 26,950-00
Deductions
Provident Fund 8,000-00
House Rent 525-00
G.I.S. 120-00
Income Tax 2,500-00
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 Shyamwati Sharma & 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/-
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7642 OF 2009
MANASVI JAIN … APPELLANT
VERSUS
DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION … RESPONDENTS
Citation2014 ALLSCR2093
N.V. RAMANA, J.
Read original judgment here;click here
This appeal by special leave arises out of the Judgment and order
dated 26th March, 2008 passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand in a Motor
Accidents Claims Appeal No. 484 of 2006.
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
1
Page 2
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 month.
3. 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.
2
Page 3
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 them.
4. 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 appellant’s appeal was for enhancement
of compensation.
5. The High Court allowed the appeal of the Delhi Transport Corporation
and directed the National Insurance Company to pay the compensation
amount.
6. 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
appellant’s appeal.
7. The appellant, not satisfied with the quantum of compensation and
the rate of interest awarded by the Courts below, filed this appeal.
3
Page 4
8. The contention of the counsel for the appellant is that in deciding the
‘take home salary’ of the deceased, the Tribunal as well as the High Court
erroneously deducted from the salary an amount of Rs.11,140/- contributed
by the deceased towards various heads such as General Provident Fund,
house rent, insurance, income tax etc. He submitted that these
contributions should also be treated as the income of the deceased.
9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance
Company supported both the judgments of the Tribunal and the High Court.
10. In view of the contentions raised on behalf of either side and the
material placed before us, the main question that arises for
consideration is whether for the purpose of deciding net monthly
income of the deceased, the amount of voluntary contributions he
made towards General Provident Fund etc., should be included or
excluded from his salary?
11. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
orders passed by the Tribunal and the High Court. It is not in dispute that
the deceased was getting an amount of Rs.26,924/- as monthly salary and
Rs.11,140/- was being deducted under various heads such as GPF, House
Rent, G.I.S. and Income Tax. After taking into account these deductions,
the tribunal arrived at a conclusion that the net salary of the deceased is
4
Page 5
Rs.15,784/- and awarded a total compensation of Rs.10,25,176/-, including
Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.10,000/- towards mental
agony. The High Court did not interfere with the judgment of the Tribunal.
12. This Court in Shyamwati Sharma & Ors. Vs. Karam Singh & 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 that
“while 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
deceased.
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:
Monthly Income Rs. 26,950-00
Deductions
Provident Fund 8,000-00
House Rent 525-00
G.I.S. 120-00
Income Tax 2,500-00
5
Page 6
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 Shyamwati Sharma & 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/-
14. Accordingly, we determine the monthly take home salary of the
deceased as Rs.25,000/-. Applying multiplier 8, the appellant is entitled to
the compensation as under:
Financial Loss Rs. 16,00,000-00
2/3rd of 25,000 x 12 x 8
Funeral Expense Rs. 5,000-00
Towards mental agony Rs. 10,000-00
---------------------------
Total compensation Rs. 16,15,000-00
-----------------------
6
Page 7
The appellant is also entitled to an interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing
of the petition before the Tribunal till the date of payment.
15. We therefore set aside the judgments of the Courts below and allow
the appeal in the above terms with no order as to costs.
…………………………………………CJI.
(P. SATHASIVAM)
……………………………………………J.
(RANJAN GOGOI)
……………………………………………J.
(N.V. RAMANA)
NEW DELHI,
APRIL 23, 2014
7
deceased. As per salary certificate, his monthly income and deductions are
as under:
Monthly Income Rs. 26,950-00
Deductions
Provident Fund 8,000-00
House Rent 525-00
G.I.S. 120-00
Income Tax 2,500-00
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 Shyamwati Sharma & 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/-
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7642 OF 2009
MANASVI JAIN … APPELLANT
VERSUS
DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION … RESPONDENTS
Citation2014 ALLSCR2093
N.V. RAMANA, J.
Read original judgment here;click here
This appeal by special leave arises out of the Judgment and order
dated 26th March, 2008 passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand in a Motor
Accidents Claims Appeal No. 484 of 2006.
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
1
Page 2
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 month.
3. 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.
2
Page 3
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 them.
4. 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 appellant’s appeal was for enhancement
of compensation.
5. The High Court allowed the appeal of the Delhi Transport Corporation
and directed the National Insurance Company to pay the compensation
amount.
6. 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
appellant’s appeal.
7. The appellant, not satisfied with the quantum of compensation and
the rate of interest awarded by the Courts below, filed this appeal.
3
Page 4
8. The contention of the counsel for the appellant is that in deciding the
‘take home salary’ of the deceased, the Tribunal as well as the High Court
erroneously deducted from the salary an amount of Rs.11,140/- contributed
by the deceased towards various heads such as General Provident Fund,
house rent, insurance, income tax etc. He submitted that these
contributions should also be treated as the income of the deceased.
9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance
Company supported both the judgments of the Tribunal and the High Court.
10. In view of the contentions raised on behalf of either side and the
material placed before us, the main question that arises for
consideration is whether for the purpose of deciding net monthly
income of the deceased, the amount of voluntary contributions he
made towards General Provident Fund etc., should be included or
excluded from his salary?
11. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
orders passed by the Tribunal and the High Court. It is not in dispute that
the deceased was getting an amount of Rs.26,924/- as monthly salary and
Rs.11,140/- was being deducted under various heads such as GPF, House
Rent, G.I.S. and Income Tax. After taking into account these deductions,
the tribunal arrived at a conclusion that the net salary of the deceased is
4
Page 5
Rs.15,784/- and awarded a total compensation of Rs.10,25,176/-, including
Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.10,000/- towards mental
agony. The High Court did not interfere with the judgment of the Tribunal.
12. This Court in Shyamwati Sharma & Ors. Vs. Karam Singh & 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 that
“while 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
deceased.
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:
Monthly Income Rs. 26,950-00
Deductions
Provident Fund 8,000-00
House Rent 525-00
G.I.S. 120-00
Income Tax 2,500-00
5
Page 6
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 Shyamwati Sharma & 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/-
14. Accordingly, we determine the monthly take home salary of the
deceased as Rs.25,000/-. Applying multiplier 8, the appellant is entitled to
the compensation as under:
Financial Loss Rs. 16,00,000-00
2/3rd of 25,000 x 12 x 8
Funeral Expense Rs. 5,000-00
Towards mental agony Rs. 10,000-00
---------------------------
Total compensation Rs. 16,15,000-00
-----------------------
6
Page 7
The appellant is also entitled to an interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing
of the petition before the Tribunal till the date of payment.
15. We therefore set aside the judgments of the Courts below and allow
the appeal in the above terms with no order as to costs.
…………………………………………CJI.
(P. SATHASIVAM)
……………………………………………J.
(RANJAN GOGOI)
……………………………………………J.
(N.V. RAMANA)
NEW DELHI,
APRIL 23, 2014
7
No comments:
Post a Comment