Point of Law: Motor Accident - Section 163A of M.V Act is for calculating compensation under the principle of no fault, the same schedule has been following as the guideline while assessing compensation in a claim under Section 166 of the M.V Act as well, subject to judicial pronouncements with modifications.

JUDGMENT :

National Insurance Company, the original 3rd respondent in the O.P(MV).No.1529/2015, has preferred this appeal challenging award dated 31.1.2019 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Perumbavoor urging that excess amount was granted towards compensation by the Tribunal. Original petitioners 1 to 5 are the respondents herein.

2. The parties in this appeal will be referred as ‘insurance company' as well as ‘petitioners', hereinafter.

3. Briefly spelt, the petitioners, who are legal-heirs and dependents of the deceased Sooraj Raveendran, approached the Tribunal and sought compensation to the tune of Rs.80 lakh. According to the petitioners, on 21.10.2015 at about 10.30 p.m while Sooraj Raveendran was riding his scooter bearing Registration No.KL-41/H-9695 through the Seaport-Airport road from south to north and when he reached near Poojari corner, he was hit down by a lorry bearing Registration No.TN-52/F-2454 driven by the 2nd respondent in a rash and negligent manner came from behind. Though Sooraj Raveendran was taken to Sunrise Hospital, he succumbed to injuries on the same day.

4. The original respondents 1 and 2, the owner and driver of the lorry bearing Registration No.TN-52/F-2454 were set exparte by the Tribunal.

5. The 3rd respondent insurance company filed written statement admitting valid policy to the lorry. The negligence alleged against the 2nd respondent was denied. The age, occupation and income of the deceased also were disputed. Various claims were opposed. The learned Tribunal tried O.P(MV).No.1529/2015 along with O.P(MV).No.1201/2016 and as per common award dated 31.1.2019, Rs.69,49,800/- was granted as compensation.

6. The learned counsel for the insurance company Sri. Lal George submitted that the Tribunal granted excess amount by considering Ext.X2 salary certificate of Sooraj Raveendran in its entirety excluding income tax. According to the learned counsel, the gross earnings of the deceased was Rs.34,733/-. But the Tribunal only deducted Rs.700/-towards statutory bonus and Rs.780/-towards income tax. It is specifically pointed out that the Tribunal went wrong in including conveyance allowance, medical allowance and manager allowance as part of income for calculating compensation.

7. Whereas the learned counsel for the petitioners Sri A.N.Santhosh submitted that as per the decision reported in [2011 (2) KLT 451 : 2011 KHC 4321], Sunil Sharma & Ors. v. Bachitar Singh & Ors., the Apex Court held that HRA, CCA and medical allowance are liable to be considered in calculating the income of the deceased. Similarly, EPF and GIS are also to be included as part of the income.

8. On reading the above decision, the submission appears to be correct. The learned counsel for the insurance company also conceded this aspect. Therefore, the Tribunal could not be faulted in considering Rs.1,250/- shown as medical expenses in Ext.X2 also as part of the income.

9. The learned counsel for the insurance company zealously opposed inclusion of Rs.9,583/-shown under the head ‘manager allowance' in Ext.X2. According to the learned counsel, the same also should have been excluded. This submission appears to be not convincing even at the first blush. The rationale is, if a person is given manager allowance while holding the post of a manager, the same is part of his work and the same is liable to be considered for calculating the monthly income. In this connection, the decision reported in [2009(1) KLT 462 : 2009 KHC 4009], Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Ram Prasad Varma & Ors. is relevant. In this decision it was held by the Honourable Supreme Court that the amount which were required to be paid to the deceased by its employer by way of perks should be included for computation of monthly income as that would have been added to his monthly income by way of contribution to the family as contra distinction to the ones who were for his benefit. However, statutory amount of tax paid thereupon must be deducted. Thus th