LexMANASVI JAIN versus DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION LTD. & ORS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2014] 5 S.C.R. 573 MANASVI JAIN v. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION LTD. & ORS (Civil Appeal No. 7642 of 2009) APRIL 23, 2014 [P. SATHASIVAM, CJI, RANJAN GOGOi AND N.V. RAMANA, JJ.] . Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: s.166 - Compensation in case A B of fatal accident - Assessment of income of the deceased - C Held: While ascertaining the income of the deceased, any deductions shown in the salary certificate 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 D income of the deceased. The father of the appellant died in motor accident. He was aged 55 years on the date of accident and was working as Executive Engineer with the PWD and was E earning salary of Rs. 26,950 p.m. The Tribunal while determining net monthly income of the deceased, excluded various deductions towards GPF, House Rent, GIS and income tax. The take home salary was determined as Rs. 15,784 p.m. Thus, taking into consideration his age and monthly salary at Rs. 15, 784 F p.m., the amount of compensation of Rs. 10.10 .lacs was held to be payable to the appellant. The appellant filed appeal before the High Court seeking enhancement of compensation which was G dismissed. Hence the instant appeal. Allowing the appeal, the Court 573 H 574 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 5 S.C.R. A HELD: 1. 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.l.S. and Income Tax. After taking into account these deductions, the Tribunal arrived B at a conclusion that the net salary of the deceased is 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 c Tribunal. [Para 11] [577-D-F] 2. It is clear from salary certificate 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. Except contribution towards D 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 E can be rounded to Rs. 25,000/- Accordingly, the monthly take home salary of the deceased is determined at Rs. 25,000/-. Applying multiplier 8, the appellant is entitled to the compensation of Rs.16.15 lacs. [Paras 13 and 14] [578- 0-H] F G H Shyamwati Sharma & Ors. vs. Karam Singh & Ors. (2010) 12 sec 378: 2010 (8) SCR 417 - relied on. Case Law Reference: 2010 (8) SCR 417 Relied on Para 11 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 7642 of 2009. Frorii the Judgment & Order dated 26.03.2008 of the High MANASVI JAIN v. DELHI TRANSPORT 575 CORPORATION LTD. Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in Appeal from Order No. 484 A of 2006. Rajesh Tyagi, Atishi Dipankar for the Appellant. M.K. Dua, Kishore Rawat, Avijit Bhattacharjee, Dr. Monika Gusain, Hari Om Yadav, Abhinav Jain for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by N.V. RAMANA, J. 1. This appeal by special leave arises B out of the Judgment and order dated 26th March, 2008 passed C 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 th~ Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Dehradun D 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 month. E 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 F of the deceased issued by the Ex
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.