SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(AP) 274

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI 
Ravi Nath Tilhari, Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa, JJ.
M/S Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd, - Appellant
Versus
Chintaluri Annapurna, W/o Late Mohana Murali Krishna Babu and ors. – Respondents
Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No: 2776/2014
Decided On : 02-01-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : S A V Ratnam
For the Respondent: T D Pani Kumar

The court emphasized that just compensation must be fair and equitable, affirming that family pension should not be deducted from the compensation amount.

Headnote:

(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 173 - Appeal against compensation awarded by Tribunal - The Tribunal awarded Rs.33,62,328/- as compensation, which was contested by the insurer on grounds of excessive compensation and improper deductions for income tax. The court found that the Tribunal correctly calculated the salary and future prospects, awarding an enhanced compensation of Rs.40,25,075/- with interest at 9% per annum. (Paras 5, 19, 20)

(B) Just Compensation - The court emphasized that just compensation must be fair and equitable, considering the loss suffered due to wrongful death. The court held that the family pension should not be deducted from the compensation amount. (Paras 15, 12)

Facts of the case:
The claimants, dependents of the deceased teacher, sought compensation after his death in an accident. The Tribunal awarded compensation which the insurer appealed, arguing it was excessive and improperly calculated. (Paras 5, 6)

Findings of Court:
The court upheld the Tribunal's calculation of the deceased's salary and future prospects, enhancing the compensation to Rs.40,25,075/- with interest at 9%. (Paras 19, 20)

Issues: The main issues included whether the compensation awarded was excessive and the proper calculation of income tax deductions. (Paras 3, 4)

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the Tribunal's calculation of compensation was justified, emphasizing the need for just compensation and the treatment of family pension in such cases. (Paras 15, 12)

Result: Appeal dismissed; compensation enhanced to Rs.40,25,075/- with interest at 9%.

JUDGMENT :

Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa, J.

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 determination of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act”.

23. In Sarla Verma (Supra), this Court held “20.Generally the actual income of the deceased less income tax should be the starting point for calculating the compensation.”

This Court further observed that

“24…..Where the annual income is in taxable range, the word “actual salary” should be read as “actual salary less tax”. Therefore, 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. But while deducting income-tax from salary, it is necessary to notice the nature of the income of the vic

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top