VIMAL KANWAR & ORS. versus KISHORE DAN & ORS.

Citation: [2013] 3 S.C.R. 223 · Decided: 03-05-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.S. SINGHVI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2013) 3 S.C.R. 223 
VIMAL KANWAR & ORS. 
v. 
KISHORE DAN & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 5513 of 2012) 
MAY 03, 2013. 
[G.S. SINGHVI AND SUDHANSU JYOTI 
MUKHOPADHAYA, JJ.] 
Motor Vehicle Act, 1988: 
s. 166 - Fatal accident - Compensation - Computation 
of - Deductions. - Held: Provident Fund, Pension, Insurance, 
receivable by heirs on account of victim's death will not come 
within the periphery of the Act to be termed as 'pecuniary 
A 
B 
c 
advantage' liable for deduction. 
0 
s. 166 
-
Fatal 
accident -
Compensation 
-
Compassionate appointment -Deductions towards 'pecuniary 
advantage' - Held: Compassionate appointment cannot be 
termed as 'pecuniary advantage' and any amount received 
on such appointment is not liable for deduction for E 
determining the compensation. 
s. 166 - Fatal accident - Compensation -
Deduction 
towards income-tax - If annual income comes within taxable 
range, income tax is required to be deducted for determining 
F 
actual salary of deceased and presumption would be that 
employer has deducted the tax at source from employee's 
salary - In case of income of a non-salaried victim, claimant 
is required to prove that deceased had paid income tax and 
no further tax is required to be deducted from the income. 
G 
s. 166 - Fatal accident - Compensation - Multiplier -
Increase towards future income - Held: Deceased being a 
Government servant and 28 ~ years at the time of death, his 
223 
H 
224 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2013) 3 S.C.R. 
A pay would have doubled if he wquld have continued in service 
till the date of retirement- Therefore, 100% increase in future 
income of deceased should have been allowed by Tribunal 
and High Court - Keeping in view the age of the victim at the 
8 
time of his death, multiplier of 17 would be applied. 
s. 166 - Fatal accident - Amounts towards Joss of 
consortium, loss of estate, loss of Jove and affection for 
daughter, Joss of Jove and affection for widow and mother and 
funeral expenses awarded. 
C 
In a claim petition filed by the wife, daughter and 
mother of the victim of a fatal motor accident, who was 
an Assistant Engineer in a State Government department 
and was 28 % years of age at the time of the death, the 
Tribunal held that the reckless and negligent driving of 
D the drier of the offending vehicle caused the accident 
resulting in death of the victim. Though the salary of the 
victim was Rs.8920/-, the Tribunal reduced it to Rs.8000/ 
-. It further deducted a sum of Rs.1000/- per month 
towards PF, pension and insurance, assessed the actual 
E salary at Rs.7000/- and added Rs.4500/- towards future 
income. It applied multiplier of 15 holding that the wife of 
deceased would get job on compassionate ground and 
determined the compensation at Rs.14,93, 700/-. The High 
Court though held that multiplier of 15 was not correct, 
F but declined to interfere with the amount of 
compensation. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. Provident Fund, Pension and Insurance 
G receivable by the claimants on the death of a motor 
accident victim, will not come within the periphery of the 
Motor Vehicles Act to be termed as "pecuniary 
advantage" liable for deduction. [para 19] [234-H; 235-A] 
H 
Helen C. Rebello (Mrs) and Others vs. Maharashtra State 
VIMAL KANWAR & ORS. v. KISHORE DAN & ORS. 225 
Road Transport Corporation & Anr. 1998 (1) Suppl. A 
· SCR 684 = (1999) 1 sec 90 - relied on 
1.2. "Compassionate appointment" has no 
correlation with the amount receivable under a statute 
occasioned on account of accidental death and cannot 
8 
be termed as "pecuniary advantage" that comes under 
the periphery of Motor Vehicles Act and any amount 
received on such appointment is not liable to be dettucted 
for determination of compensation under the Act. [para 
20) [237-B-D] 
c 
1.3. It is clear that if the annual income comes within 
the taxable range, income tax is required to be deducted 
for determination of the actual salary. In case the income 
of deceased was only from "salary", the presumption 
would be that the employer u/s 192 (1) of the Income-tax 0 
Act, 1961, had deducted the tax at source from the 
employee's salary. In case an objection is raised by any 
party, the objector is required to prove by producing 
evidence such as LPC to suggest that the employer failed 
to deduct the TDS from the salary of the employee. 
However, when income of deceased was from sources 
E 
other than salary, and the annual income fell within 
taxable range, and a

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.