Smt. Uma Kshatri Vs Hari Ram Sahu (Chhattisgarh High Court)
Summary: This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was filed by Smt. Uma Kshatri, mother and legal heir of deceased Ayush Singh, seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur, in MACT No.620 of 2021. The Tribunal, by award dated 15.09.2022, had awarded total compensation of Rs.37,74,245/- for the death of the deceased.
Ayush Singh died in a motor accident on 30.12.2020 due to rash and negligent driving of the offending truck bearing registration No. C.G. 04-MU/9311. The claimant sought enhancement up to Rs.94 lakhs under various heads. The deceased was stated to have been working as Assistant Grade-III in the Health Department of the Chhattisgarh State Government and was approximately 26 years old and unmarried.
The Tribunal assessed the deceased’s monthly income at Rs.24,165/- on the basis of salary slip Ex.P-16, resulting in annual income of Rs.2,89,980/-. It added 50% towards future prospects, taking annual income to Rs.4,34,970/-. Applying a one-half deduction towards personal expenses and multiplier 17, it calculated loss of dependency at Rs.36,97,245/-. It further awarded Rs.16,500/- towards loss of estate, Rs.16,500/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.44,000/- towards loss of filial consortium, aggregating to Rs.37,74,245/-.
The claimant contended before the High Court that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was on the lower side and required enhancement. The insurer, however, argued that the Tribunal had failed to deduct income tax while assessing the income and annual dependency, and consequently had awarded higher compensation.
The High Court examined the salary evidence and found no basis to interfere with the monthly income of Rs.24,165/- adopted by the Tribunal. According to the Court, the salary slip established gross wages of Rs.24,165/- at the time of the accident, and the corresponding annual income of Rs.2,89,980/- could not be regarded as an understatement of income.
The Tribunal had added 50% towards future prospects, resulting in total annual income of Rs.4,34,970/-. Since the deceased was about 26 years old and unmarried, a 50% deduction towards personal expenses and multiplier 17 were applied. The High Court found these components consistent with the applicable Supreme Court precedents.
A material issue before the Court concerned deduction of income tax. For Financial Year 2020-2021, corresponding to Assessment Year 2021-2022, individuals with total taxable income up to Rs.5,00,000/- were entitled to rebate under Section 87A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Since the income after adding future prospects was Rs.4,34,970/-, the Court held that the Tribunal was legally justified in not deducting tax from that amount.
The Court also considered the amounts awarded under the conventional heads. It held that Rs.16,500/- towards loss of estate, Rs.16,500/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.44,000/- towards loss of consortium could not be regarded as inadequate.
In reaching its conclusion, the Court found that the Tribunal had evaluated the documentary evidence and followed the applicable Supreme Court precedents, including National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121, and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram, (2018) 18 SCC 130. The principles governing just compensation and multiplier-based assessment were therefore found to have been properly applied.
Consequently, the Chhattisgarh High Court found no infirmity in the Tribunal’s award of Rs.37,74,245/- warranting interference. The appeal seeking enhancement was dismissed.
Cases Discussed
- National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680.
- Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121.
- Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram, (2018) 18 SCC 130.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT
1. This appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “MV Act”) has been filed by the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation, challenging the impugned award dated 15th Sept. 2022 passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur, (Chhattisgarh) in MACT No. 620 of 2021 whereby a total compensation of Rs. 37,74,245/- has been awarded for the death of deceased.
2. Brief facts of the case as pleaded in the claim application are that deceased Ayush Singh died in an accident took place on 30.12.2020 due to rash and negligent driving of respondent no.1 who had driven the offending Vehicle (Truck) No. C.G. 04-MU/9311. The claimant being mother and legal heir of deceased filed the claim petition seeking a total enhancement of Rs. 94 lakhs on various heads.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the award passed by the Tribunal is on lower side which needs to be suitably enhanced.
4. Learned counsel for respondent no.3/Insurer contends that while assessing the income and annual dependency of deceased, no tax deduction was made, thereby, higher compensation was awarded by the Tribunal.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions and perused the record with utmost circumspection.
6. After evaluating the documentary evidence following the precedents of Hon’ble Supreme Court, the Tribunal has granted a total compensation of Rs.37,74,245/- on various heads as per the following table :
| Sl.No | Head | Amount Rs. |
|---|---|---|
| 01. | Monthly income as per Ex.P-16 | 24,165/- |
| 02. | Yearly Income ( 24,165 x 12 ) | 2,89,980/- |
| 03. | One-half (½) deduction towards personal expenses (2,89,980 minus 1,44,990) |
1,44,990/- |
| 04. | Compensation after multiplier 17 is applied (1,44,990 x 17) |
24,64,830/- |
| 05. | Additional Income towards future prospects (50% of 24,64,830 i.e.,12,32,415) |
12,32,415 |
| 06 | Total loss of dependency (24,64,830 plus 12,32,415) | 36,97,245/- |
| 7. | Loss of estate | 16,500/- |
| 8. | Funeral expenses | 16,500/- |
| 9. | Loss of filial consortium | 44,000/- |
| 10. | Total | 37,74,245/- |
7. The claimant has pleaded that the deceased was working as Assistant Grade-III in Health Department of C.G. State Government and used to earn Rs.25,000/- per month. The claimant has produced the salary slip (Ex.P-16) to prove that the gross wages of the deceased was Rs.24,165/- at the time of incident. Therefore, the income taken by the Tribunal i.e., Rs.24,165/- per month and Rs. 2,89,980/- per annum cannot be said to be on lower side. The Tribunal added 50% towards future prospects, bringing the total annual income to Rs. 4,34,970/-. Since the deceased was aged about 26 years and was unmarried, a 50% (one-half) deduction was applied for personal expenses, and a multiplier of 17 was adopted. For the Financial Year 2020-2021 (Assessment Year 2021-2022), individuals with a total taxable income up to Rs. 5,00,000/- received a tax rebate under Section 87A of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the decision not to deduct tax from Rs. 4,34,970/- is legally sustainable.
Further the amounts awarded under the other conventional heads i.e., Rs.16,500/- for loss of estate; Rs. 16,500/- for funeral expenses and Rs.44,000/- for loss of consortium cannot be said to be inadequate.
8. Thus the assessment of compensation by the Tribunal was just, proper, and in strict conformity with Supreme Court decisions rendered in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC 121 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram (2018) 18 SCC 130,
9. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned award passed by the Tribunal warranting interference by this Court in this appeal.
10. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.
