Just compensation must be fair and equitable, reflecting the loss suffered; it may exceed the claimed amount, considering future prospects and lawful deductions.

JUDGMENT:

(Per Dr.Justice Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa)

The instant appeal under Section 173 of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1988[for short ‘M.V.Act’] has been filed by the Appellant/Oriental Insurance Company Limited, impugning the Order dated 22.03.2013 passed in M.V.O.P.No.193 of 2012 on the file of the Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge at Rajahmundry[For short ‘the Tribunal’].

2. Heard Mrs.S.A.V.Ratnam, learned counsel for the Appellant and Sri Hari, learned counsel representing Sri T.D.Pani Kumar, learned counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 3/Claimants.

3. Learned counsel for the Appellant would submit that the amount of compensation awarded to the claimants is high and the concept of just compensation has been lost sight of. Learned counsel would further submit that the deceased was left only four years one month service, as such, the actual loss of salary has to be taken upto the superannuation period and notional income after the superannuation. Learned counsel would further submit that the deceased is an income tax assessee and 30% of his gross salary has to be deducted towards the income tax. Learned counsel would further submit that the family pension has not been taken into consideration.

4. Learned counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3/Claimants would submit that the Tribunal failed to award just compensation and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is not adequate. Learned counsel would further submit that the Tribunal has not awarded future prospects which is to be granted @ 15% as the deceased was aged about 53 years at the time of the accident. Learned counsel would further submit that the amount awarded under conventional heads is not in accordance with law.

5. A perusal of the impugned award would show that, on the application filed by the Claimants, who are the dependants of the deceased Chintaluri Murali Krishnababu, who was working as a Teacher in Bala Vignana Mandir, Rajahmundry, the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.33,62,328/- towards compensation with proportionate costs and subsequent interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization against Respondents 1 to 3 jointly and severally, who are the driver, owner and insurer of the offending vehicle respectively. Aggrieved thereby, the Insurer preferred the present appeal.

6. There is no dispute with regard to the age, avocation, income of the deceased and the relationship of the claimants with the deceased. The main contention of the Appellant is that, though the deceased is an income tax assessee, only professional tax of Rs.200/- has been deducted from his salary instead of 30% of the gross salary. In the case of Vimal Kanwar and Ors. Vs Kishore Dan and Ors. , (2013) 7 SCC 476 the Hon’ble Apex Court held that in the absence of any evidence that the income tax on the estimated income of the employee was not deducted from salary of the employee during the particular month or the financial year, it is presumed that the salary paid to the deceased as per the last pay certificate was paid in accordance with law i.e., by deducting the income tax on the estimated income of the deceased by that month or the financial year. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Vimal Kanwar (supra) held as under in paras 22 to 25 as under:

“22. The third issue is “whether the income tax is liable to be deducted for det