Back
2015 Supreme(Tri) 390
THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA, AGARTALA
DEEPAK GUPTA, J.
Oriental Insurance Company Limited - Appellant
Versus
Piyali Sarkar - Claimant-Respondent
MAC APP. NO.37 OF 2011
Decided on : 18.06.2015
For the appellant : Mr. P. Gautam, Mr. S. Debnath
For the respondent No.1: Mr. G.S. Bhattacharji
For the respondents No.2 & 3: Mr. S. Lodh
The multiplier for calculating compensation should be applied based on the age of the victim, regardless of the year of retirement.
Headnote:
Income Tax Deduction - Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - The court found that the deceased was not subject to income tax deduction as evidenced by the last pay certificate, and therefore, the tribunal erred in not deducting the component on income tax from the deceased's salary. The court also emphasized that the multiplier for calculating the compensation should be applied based on the age of the victim, regardless of the year of retirement.
Fact of the Case:
The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded Rs.18,59,112/- in favor of the claimant, which was appealed by the Insurance Company. The main issues raised were the deduction of income tax from the deceased's salary and the application of the multiplier for calculating compensation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found no merit in the appeal and dismissed it, emphasizing that the deceased was not subject to income tax deduction and that the multiplier for calculating compensation should be based on the age of the victim.
Issues: The main issues raised were the deduction of income tax from the deceased's salary and the application of the multiplier for calculating compensation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the deceased was not subject to income tax deduction as evidenced by the last pay certificate and emphasized that the multiplier for calculating compensation should be applied based on the age of the victim, regardless of the year of retirement.
Final Decision: The appeal was found to have no merit and was dismissed.
This appeal by the Insurance Company is directed against the award dated 19-08-2010 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, South Tripura, Udaipur in case No. T.S.(MAC) 98 of 2009 whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.18,59,112/- in favour of the claimant.
2. The main issues raised by Mr. P. Gautam, learned counsel for the appellant, are as follows:-
(i) That, the learned Tribunal erred in not deducting the component on income tax from the salary of the deceased; and
(ii) That, the learned Tribunal wrongly applied a multiplier of 11 because the petitioner would have earned only for 5(five) more years till the age of 58 and he would not have earned any amount thereafter.
3. I find no merit in any of these two contentions. The last pay certificate of the petitioner has been exhibited on record and the certificate shows that the total monthly income of the deceased was Rs.20,899/-. He was also getting GPF deducted @ Rs.4,000/- per month. This Court can take judicial notice of the fact that a person can claim deduction of Rs.1,00,000/- per year by investing in GPF and other related investments. In this case, the last pay certificate itself shows that the claimant was depositing GPF and, therefore, no income tax was being deducted. Against the column of income tax deduction, the amount mentioned is zero. Therefore, the learned Tribunal had no material before it to come to any conclusion that the deceased was assessed to income tax.
4. As far as the second submission is concerned, it is not as if a man after retirement is like an abandoned cow who is put to pasture and does nothing. Even a man who retires at the age of 58 or 60 is efficient enough to work. He may not work in the Government employment but with his experience even in the private sector he can work and may be earned more than what he was earning in Government employment. Therefore, the Apex Court has laid down that the multipliers have to be applied keeping in view the age of the victim regardless of the year of his retirement.
5. As such, I find no merit in the appeal which is accordingly dismissed.
6. Send down the lower court records forthwith.
