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

2023 Supreme(Pat) 1076

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
KHATIM REZA, J.
Miscellaneous Appeal No.444 of 2013
(14.9.2023)
Manager, National Insurance
Company Ltd. ... Appellant
vs.
Veena Singh & Ors. ... Respondents

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Ashok Priyadarshi.
For the Respondents: Mr. Amandeep Kumar.

Headnote:

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 166 – Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order XLI Rule 33 – Death in vehicular accident – Compensation of Rs. 41,68,880/- with 6% simple interest awarded by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal – Deceased aged 58 years and he was working as Medical Officer and his gross salary was Rs. 57,000/- per month – Appellate Court under Order XLI Rule 33 has power to make order to enhance compensation even though claimant has not filed any cross appeal/ objection – Salary of deceased for the purpose of calculating quantum of compensation should be actual salary minus tax – Salary of deceased as mentioned on salary slip is deemed to be his income after deducting tax by employer and said amount has been rightly considered by Tribunal for computing quantum compensation – Insurance Company did not produce any witness before Tribunal to contradict the same – 15% of salary amount of deceased would be entitled to be added while calculating total loss of dependency – Deduction of 1/3rd of income on account of personal expenses would be appropriate – Widow of deceased would be entitled for a spousal consortium and parental consortium to each child @ Rs. 40,000/- – Amount of compensation as awarded by Tribunal modified from Rs. 41,68,880/- plus 6% per annum to Rs. 48,63,962/-, alongwith 6% interest from date of claim petition till realization. (Paras 16, 21, 22, 24, 26, 27, 29, 30 and 36)

Income Tax Act, 1961 – Section 192 (1) – TDS – In case income of informant 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 any objection is raised by any party, objector is required to prove by producing evidence such as LPC to suggest that employer failed to deduct TDS from salary of employee. (Para 25)

ORDER

This Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed against the judgment and award dated 04.12.2012 and 14.01.2013 respectively passed by learned Additional District Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Madhepura in Claim Case No. 23 of 2010 whereby Claimant Nos. 1 and 3 were found entitled to get compensation for vehicular accidental death of deceased and Insurance Company appellant was directed to pay compensation amount of Rs. 41,68,880/- with 6 per cent simple interest over the same from the date of filing of the claim i.e. 11.06.2010 till the realization from the Insurance Company and payment to the Claimant Nos. 1 and 3.

2. This appeal is preferred by the Insurance Company mainly on two grounds:—

(A) The accident so caused by an unknown vehicle thereby the case will come into the ambit of Section 161 Motor Vehicle Act, 1988.

(B) The award has been calculated without deducting the income tax from the gross income of the deceased.

3. The case of the claimants, in short, is that Dr. Amarnath Singh (deceased) aged 58 years on the date of the accident i.e. 14.03.2009, while travelling with his daughter-in-law, namely, Runa Singh and grandson by their own car bearing Registration No. BR-10F-164 to Saharsa met with an accident due to rash and negligent driving fo the driver of the Truck bearing Registration No. BR-11D-7438 near Ganesh Asthan (Madhepura) at about 04:30 am in the morning. All the occupants of the car sustained grievous injury and were brought to the Sadar Hospital where Dr. Amarnath Singh was declared dead and the injured Runa Singh and Nishu were referred to Patna for better treatment. FIR was lodged by the brother of the deceased, namely, Dharmanth Singh under Sections 279, 304A, 337 and 338 of Indian Penal Code as Madhepura P.S. case No. 91 of 2009 dated 14.03.2009.

4. The claim petition has been filed by wife of the deceased namely Veena Singh, two children namely Rishi Singh and Ritu Singh, daughter-in-law namely Runa Singh and grandson namely Arunabh Singh under Section 166 of Motor Vehicle Act.

5. The case of the claimants, in short, is that the deceased Dr. Amarnath Singh died on 14.03.2009, when he was going on a car with his family, in vehicular accident near Ganesh Asthan situated at Madhepura caused by rash and negligent driving of the driver of truck bearing No. BR-11D-7438 and F.I.R. was registered under section 279, 337, 338 and 304A of Indian Penal Code. It is further contended that Dr. Amarnath had been badly injured in the accident and declared dead by the doctor when taken to the hospital. It is contended that the deceased was 58 years old at the time of the accident as per Birth Certificate exhibited as Ext. 2 and he was working as Medical Officer posted at PHC, Madhepura and his gross salary was Rs. 57,000/- per month. Claimant exhibited salary slip of the deceased as Ext. 1 which shows his gross income as Rs. 57,415/- per month.

6. On summons, Respondent No. 6 i.e. Tej Narayan, who is the owner of the vehicle, and Respondent No. 7 i.e. Sanjay Kumar, who was the driver of the offending vehicle at the time of the accident, had filed joint written statement and exhibited Ext. A-1, which shows that the offending vehicle was covered under the insurance with National Insurance on the date of the accident i.e. 14.03.2009 and also exhibited valid Driving License of the driver (Ext-A1/3) and Permit of the offending Vehicle.

7. The learned Tribunal after analyzing evidences adduced by the parties, materials on record, has held that the deceased died in vehicular accident caused by rash and negligent driving of truck bearing No. BR-11D-7438 resulting into death of Dr. Amarnath Singh on 14.03.2009 and further held that insurance was valid and effective on the date of accident. On the basis of the evidence adduced by the parties, it was held that the deceased was of 58 years of age at the time of the alleged accident and he was working as a Medical Officer at P.H.C., Madhepura was earning Rs. 57,415/- per months whi

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