The enhancement of compensation must be justified and based on facts; deductions for living expenses depend on the particular employment situation of the deceased.

JUDGMENT :

1. Delay condoned in SLP (C)Dy.No.28020/2019.

2. Leave granted.

3. Heard learned counsel for the Insurance Company as also the learned counsel for the respondents and perused the appeal papers.

4. The fact relating to the accident having occurred and the father of the respondent no. 1 who was also the son of respondent nos. 2 and 3 having expired in the said accident is not in dispute. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (For short `MACT’) while taking note of all aspects of the matter has through its award dated 28.7.2015 awarded the sum of Rs.2,50,60,000/-with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. The respondent nos. 1 to 3 herein as also the insurance company were before the High Court assailing the award passed by the MACT.

5. The claimants were seeking enhancement of the compensation while the insurance company was seeking reduction of the compensation awarded by the MACT. The High Court having considered the appeals together, through its common judgment dated 30.11.2019 has enhanced the compensation to Rs.4,56,21,568/-with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum. Resultantly, the appeal filed by the insurance company was dismissed and the appeal filed by the claimants was allowed in part. The appellants have acceded to the judgment of the High Court in accepting the quantum enhanced while the Insurance Company is assailing the same in so far as the quantum of the compensation is concerned, in this appeal. The owner of the offending vehicle is in the analogous appeal.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company while seeking reduction of the amount awarded by the High Court would contend that the salary as reckoned by the High Court at 11,153 Singapore Dollars is not justified. It is contended that the tax on the same has not been deducted to take into consideration the actual loss of dependency and therefore there should be a reduction. Further, it is also the case on behalf of the appellant/Insurance Company that since the deceased was residing in Singapore, the deduction towards self expenses made at one-third is not justified and the deduction should be at 50% since the expenses are more than what is incurred than which is incurred, if in India.

7. It is also his case that the future prospects as reckoned at 30% is not justified and the same should have been at 25% since the job of the deceased cannot be considered as permanent employment.

8. Lastly, it is contended the interest as fixed by the High Court at 7.5% per annum is excessive and is without appropriate reason being assigned.

9. The learned counsel for the respondents/claimants would however seek to sustain the judgment passed by the High Court. On all the aspects which have been urged by the learned counsel for the appellant, it is contended that the MACT as well as the High Court have looked into the evidence which was available before it and has thereafter arrived at its conclusion, which does not call for interference.

10. In the light of the contentions put forth, insofar as the salary, we take note that by way of clarification, we had required the learned counsel for the respondents/claimants to point out that the amount paid was after deduction of the tax or proof for payment of tax, since the learned counsel for the appellant had contended that the same has not been done. Alongwith an application, in addition to the documents that were relied on before the MACT, the notice of assessment of the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore is produced. From the same, it would indicate that from the salary paid to the deceased, tax has been assessed in Singapore. Hence, there is no scope for double taxation on the same income. Therefore, deduct