Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
G.S. SINGHVI AND SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, JJ.
VIMAL KANWAR & ORS. - Appellant
VERSUS
KISHORE DAN & ORS.- Respondents
Civil Appeal No.5513 of 2012 (arising out of SLP(C)No.6367 of 2012)
Decided on 3-5-2013.
(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 168 – Compensation – Deductions – Compensation Rs.14,93,700/ awarded by Tribunal – Tribunal applied lower multiplier of 15 on the ground that wife would be getting family pension and would get job on compassionate ground and daughter would get married in future – Compassionate appointment can be one of conditions of service of an employee, if a scheme to that effect is framed by the employer – Compassionate appointment may have nexus with death of an employee while in service but it is not necessary that it should have correlation with accidental death – An employee dies in harness even in normal course, due to illness and to maintain family of deceased one of dependents may be entitled for compassionate appointment but that cannot be termed as “Pecuniary Advantage” that comes under periphery of Motor Vehicles Act and any amount received on such appointment is not liable for deduction for determination of compensation under Motor Vehicles Act. (Paras 9 and 20)
(B) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 168 – Compensation – Deductions – If annual income comes within taxable range income tax is required to be deducted for determination of actual salary – But while deducting income tax from salary, it is necessary to notice nature of income of victim – In case income of victim is only from “salary”, presumption would be that employer under Section 192 (1) of Income Tax Act, 1961 has deducted tax at source from employee’s salary – In case if an objection is raised by any party, objector is required to prove by producing evidence such as LPC to suggest that the employer failed to deduct TDS from salary of employee – However, there can be cases where victim is not a salaried person and annual income falls within taxable range, in such cases, if any objection as to deduction of tax is made by a party then claimant is required to prove that victim has already paid income tax and no further tax has to be deducted from income – High Court was wrong in deducting 20% from salary of deceased towards income tax, for calculating the compensation – As per law, presumption will be that employer State Government at the time of payment of salary deducted income tax on estimated income of deceased employee from salary. Appeal allowed. (Paras 9, 20 and 23)
JUDGMENT
Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya, J.:-The present appeal is filed against the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench in S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1831 and 2071 of 2003. By the impugned judgment dated 29th July, 2011, the Rajasthan High Court upheld the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’) and observed as follows: “13. In the situation, in the light of the above detail and analysis it appears that the learned tribunal’s basis of calculating amount of compensation might be erroneous but in totality determined, assessed and awarded total amount of compensation Rs.14,93,700/- is proper and justified, and there is no adequate basis for increasing or reducing it. Therefore, judgment dated 21.06.2003 by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur is affirmed and appeals by the appellants and Insurance Company are dismissed.”
2. The factual matrix of the case is that on 14th September, 1996 one Mr. Sajjan Singh Shekhawat was sitting on his scooter which was parked on the side of the road and was waiting for one Junior Engineer, N. Hari Babu and another whom he had called for discussion. At that time, the non- applicant No.1, driver of the Jeep No.RJ-10C-0833 came driving from the Railway Station side with high speed, recklessly and negligently and hit the scooter. Sajjan Singh along with his scooter came under the Jeep and was dragged with the vehicle. Due to this accident fatal injuries was caused to him and on reaching the Hospital he expired. The scooter was also damaged completely.
3. Appellant no. 1, the wife of the deceased was aged about 24 years; appellant no. 2, the daughter was aged about 2 years and appellant no. 3, the mother was aged about 55 years at the time of death of the deceased. They jointly filed an application to the Tribunal alleging that negligent and rash driving by non-applicant no. 1 caused the death of Sajjan Singh and claimed compensation of Rs.80,40,160/-. It was brought to the notice of the Tribunal that non-applicant no. 1, the jeep driver was in the employment of the non-applicant no. 2 and the non-applicant no. 3, the United India Insurance Co. Ltd. was the insurer of the vehicle.
4. The non-applicant No.3, Insurance Company on appearance filed written statement and alleged that the vehicle owner has violated the conditions of the Insurance Policy by not informing them about the accident. Further, according to the Insurance Company the vehicle owner should prove the fact that at the time of accident, the Jeep driver, non-applicant No.1 was holding a valid and effective driving licence.
5. Altogether five issues were framed by the Tribunal:
“1. Whether due to the vehicle in question Jeep No. RJ 10C 0833 being driven by driver, non-applicant No.1 on 14.09.1996, in front of Assistant Engineer Office, PWD, within the jurisdiction of Police Station Churu, negligently and recklessness and caused accident and injuries due to which Sajjan Singh Shekhawat S/o Bhanwar Singh expired.
2. Whether above said vehicle driver at the time accident was in employment of non-applicant No.2 and was working for his benefit and profit.
3. Whether the non-applicant No.3, Insurance Company in view of the preliminary objections and preliminary statement in their reply, are relieved of their liability and if not what is the effect thereon.
4. Whether the applicant are entitled to get the claim amount or any other justified amount, and if yes which applicant is entitled to how much compensation and from which non-applicant.
5. Relief.”.
6. The first issue was answered by the Tribunal in an affirmative manner. It was held that the reckless and negligent driving of the driver of Jeep No.RJ 10C 0833 caused the accident which resulted in the death of Sajjan Singh Shekhawat. Issue Nos. 2 and 3 were also decided in favour of the applicants.
7. Issue Nos. 4 and 5 were related to the entitlement of appellants towards the claims and the relief to be
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
