Deductions from compensation for life insurance and provident funds are impermissible; 'just compensation' should reflect total income beneficial for dependents without deductions linked to the deceased's savings.

Judgment :

Ananya Bandyopadhyay, J:

1. The Learned Advocates representing the respective parties are present in Court.

2. The instant appeal had been filed against the judgment and award dated 26^th August, 2021 passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fast Track 1^st Tribunal, Tamluk, Purba Medinipur in M.A.C. Case No. 35 of 2014.

3. An application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act had been filed by the claimants on account of the death of the victim in an accident which occurred on 16^th January, 2014 at about Suadighit bank More within the jurisdiction of Mugberia G.P. No.- VI with the involvement of the offending vehicle being a truck bearing registration No. WB-31/0917 which approaching at exceeding speed rashly and negligently clashed with the victim riding his motor cycle resulting in severe injuries.

4. The Learned Advocate representing the appellants/claimants submitted to have filed the instant appeal exclusively on the ground that the learned tribunal had erroneously deducted a sum of Rs. 8520/- towards early GPF contribution to the extent of Rs. 7200/- More-over, the income tax should have been deducted at the rate of 10% at the relevant point of time corresponding to the assessment year 2014-15 which should have been Rs. 4060/- instead of Rs. 3340/-.

5. The learned Advocate representing the respondent No.1/Insurance Company submitted that the learned tribunal after considering the oral as well as documentary evidence had rightly assessed the compensation award to be not interfered with.

6. Considered the rival contentions of the Learned Advocates representing the respective parties.

7. Since the occurrence of the accident, the driving license, the Insurance policy, the route permit etc. and other ancillary issues have not been disputed by the learned advocate representing the respondent No.1/insurance company, this Court restricts itself only to consider the point agitated by both the parties. The Learned Advocate representing the appellants/claimants submitted that the monthly income of the victim was Rs. 24,327/- as per the salary certificate marked as Ext.9. The yearly income of the victim, therefore, was Rs. 2,91,924/-.

In view of the observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Indira Srivastava & Ors., [(2008) 2 Supreme Court Cases 763] As held in Paragraphs 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 are quoted below

10. Section 168 of the Act uses the word 'just compensation' which, in our opinion, should be assigned a broad meaning. We cannot, in determining the issue involved in the matter, lose sight of the fact that the private sector companies in place of introducing a pension scheme takes recourse to payment of contributory Provident Fund, Gratuity and other perks to attract the people who are efficient and hard working. Different offers made to an officer by the employer, same may be either for the benefit of the employee himself or for the benefit of the entire family. If some facilities are being provided whereby the entire family stands to benefit, the same, in our opinion, must be held to be relevant for the purpose of computation of total income on the basis whereof the amount of compensation payable for the death of the kith and kin of the applicants is required to be determined. For the aforementioned purpose, we may notice the elements of pay, paid to the deceased :

"BASIC : 63,400.00 CONVEYANCE ALLOWANCE : 12,000.00 RENT CO LEASE : 49,200.00 BONUS (35% OF BASIC) : 21,840.00 TOTAL : 1,45,440.00 In addition to above, his other entitlements were :

Con. to PF 10% Basic Rs. 6,240/- (p.a.)

LTA reimbursement Rs. 7,000/- (p.a.)

Medical reimbursement Rs. 6,000/- (p.a.)

Superannuation 15% of Basic Rs. 9,360/- (p.a.) Gratuity Cont.5.34% of Basic Rs. 3,332/- (p.a.)

Medical Policy-self & Family @ Rs.55,000/- (p.a.) Education Scho