Proper assessment of the deceased's income, tax deductions, and future prospects is essential in determining compensation in motor accident claims.

JUDGMENT

Gaurang Kanth, J. The present appeal emanates from the award dated 30.01.2015 ("Impugned Award") passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal: Karkardooma Courts: East District: Delhi ("Claims Tribunal") in Motor Accident Claim No. 52/2013 titled as Smt. Surya Sharma and Ors. v. Sh. Anil Kumar Sharma and Ors..

2. The unfortunate accident on 20.01.2013 resulted in death of Mr.Vijit Sharma. The deceased was 29 years of age at the time of death. He was survived by his widow, parents and one brother (Appellants). By way of the Impugned Award, the learned Claims Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.66,18,976/- to Appellant No.1 (widow) & Appellant No. 2 (Mother) with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the realization. The learned Claims Tribunal was also pleased to grant recovery rights to Respondent No. 3 (Insurance Company) against Respondent No. 1 (Driver) and Respondent No. 2 (Owner) as per law. The learned Claims Tribunal awarded the compensation under the following heads:

3. Aggrieved by the impugned Award of the learned Claims Tribunal, the Appellants herein preferred the present Appeal.

SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

4. Learned counsel for the Appellants initiated his arguments by submitting that the learned Claims Tribunal erred in awarding Rs.66,18,975/- as compensation as against the claimed amount of Rs.5,00,00,000/-.

5. It is the contention of Mr. Maini, learned Counsel for the Appellant that the deceased was just 29 years and had done his MBA from a very reputed university. Further, he submitted that the deceased Sh. Vijit Sharma was at the threshold of his career and with maximum output and potential, he would have been promoted to next higher levels in near future. Learned counsel for the Appellants while relying on the judgment of G.M. Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. Susama Thomas and Others reported as 1994 SCC (2) 176 vehemently argued that the income of the deceased would have doubled or tripled by the age of retirement. With the passage of time, the minimum wages got revised twice in a year and thus the deceased would have earned much more if he would have survived.

6. Learned counsel while relying on the evidence of PW-2/employer Sh. Mahesh Kumar, submitted that the deceased Mr. Vijit Sharma had already completed his `probation period' and was a permanent employee in the Company with excellent performance.

7. With regard to the deduction of income tax, learned counsel for the Appellants submitted that the income tax deduction was on the higher side and it should have been deducted as reflected in Form-16A. A careful examination of Form 16A, Exh. PW-2/3 clearly reveals that only Rs.1745/- was the tax liability of the deceased during the assessment year 2013-2014.

8. Lastly, learned Counsel for the Appellants bolstered his submissions by relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. v Pranay Sethi reported as (2017) 16 SCC 680 and submitted that future prospects ought to be granted to the deceased and he is also entitled to future increase of 50% over his salary.

SUBMISSIONS OF THE RESPONDENT NO.3

9. Mr. Nandwani, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No.3/Insurance Company while relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi (supra) submitted that the nature of employment of the deceased, Late Sh. Vijit Sharma, was under the head of `fixed salary., as opposed to `permanent employment' claimed by the Appellants/Claimants. Learned counsel further submitted that permanent employment refers to the condition of service where the employee cannot be terminated in ordin