The judgment emphasizes that income tax deductions must be based on actual tax paid and ex gratia amounts cannot be deducted from compensation unless stipulated by law.

JUDGMENT :

RAVI NATH TILHARI, J :

Heard Smt. Ch.S.N. Meena Kumari, learned Counsel representing Sri Kambhampati Ramesh Babu, learned Counsel for the appellants as well as Sri M.V. Vijayaditya Reddy, learned Counsel representing Sri C. Prakash Reddy, learned Counsel for respondent No.3-Insurance Company.

2. This appeal under Section 173 of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT (in short MV Act) has been filed by the claimants for enhancing of the compensation as awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, West Godavari District, Eluru (in short 'the Tribunal') in MVOP No.297 of 2015.

3. The claimants/appellants filed MVOP No.297 of 2015 under Section 166 of MV Act claiming compensation of Rs.17 Lakhs for the death of Balantrapu Satyanarayana Murthy in road accident dated 10.03.2015 at 01:45 p.m., on NH 165 road, opposite Adarsh Public School, Kaikaluru. Their case was that the deceased was aged about 57 years. He was working as Chief Manager (Rural), Regional Business Office, State Bank of India, Bhimavaram. He started from Bhimavaram to go to Vijayawada to attend the meeting, in Tata Indica Car Bearing No.AP 31 BV 426B which met with an accident with Lorry Bearing No.AP 27 X 0757 which was being driven by the driver in a rash and negligent manner. He died and the driver of the car also sustained injuries. His monthly income from salary was Rs.1,10,000/-. He was an income tax assessee.

4. The appellant No.1 herein is the widow and appellant Nos.2 and 3 are the daughters of the deceased.

5. The respondent No.1 herein is the driver of the lorry and respondent No.2 is the owner. Respondent No.3 is the insurer of the offending vehicle.

6. The respondent No.1-driver of the lorry filed written statement. The same was adopted by the respondent No.2-owner. They denied the averments in the claim petition. It was contended that the driver of the lorry was having valid driving license and vehicle had valid Insurance Policy. The claim was very excessive. The respondents were not liable to pay the amount and in case of any liability it was for the Insurance Company to pay the compensation.

7. Respondent No.3-Insurance Company also filed the written statement. It was pleaded inter alia that the offending vehicle was insured with the said respondent. The Insurance Policy was valid from 13.02.2015 to 12.02.2016. After the accident, respondent No.2 transferred the vehicle to one Khambhampati Maruthi Rama Mohana Rao. The driver was neither rash nor negligent in driving lorry. The accident occurred only on account of negligence on the part of the driver of the Tata Car. The petition was bad for non-joinder of the driver, owner and insurer of the Tata Indica Car. The Insurance Company pleaded that the claimants be put to strict proof of the averments regarding age, income and occupation of the deceased etc.

8. The Tribunal framed the following issues :

1. Whether the pleaded accident dated 10.03.2015 occurred due to rash and negligent driving of 1st respondent of Lorry Bearing No.AP 27 X 0757 and whether the deceased Balantrapu Satyanarayana Murthy died in the said accident?

2. Whether the crime vehicle Lorry