A.F.R.

Court No. - 2

Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. 1083 of 2016

Appellant :- Smt. Shaily @ Sarla And 2 Others

Respondent :- Parmeshwari Dayal And 6 Ors.

Counsel for Appellant :- Nomman Rajvanshi

Counsel for Respondent :- Krishna Shanker Chaudhary

Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J.

Hon'ble Ajai Tyagi,J.

1.

Heard Sri Naman Rajvanshi, learned counsel for the

appellant and Sri Krishna Shanker Chaudhary, learned counsel

for the respondent-Insurance Company.

2.

This appeal, at the behest of the claimants, challenges the

award dated 19.11.2015 passed by Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No.8, Ghaziabad

(hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') in M.A.C.P. No. 474 of

2009 granting sum of Rs. 18,06,750/- with 7% simple interest.

3.

The learned Counsel for appellants has submitted that the

Tribunal has erred in not following the mandate of judicial

precedents and Rule 220 of U.P. Motor Vehicle Rules while

computing the compensation admissible to the legal heirs of

deceased who comprise of widow, minor son of 11 years and

daughter of 9 years. The deceased was 36 years of age and was

serving as Deputy Manager (Purchase) at M/s. D.M.C.L. Sugar

Factory, Loni. The income of deceased was Rs. 36,653/- per

month. It is further submitted that the Tribunal has committed

error in considering the income of deceased to be Rs.14,806/-.

The Tribunal has not considered for granting future loss of

income. The learned Counsel further submits that deduction for

personal expenses and multiplier need not be disturbed. The

learned counsel submits that the amount granted for non-

pecuniary damages is on lower side and needs recalculation.

4.

It is submitted that the deceased was working as Deputy

Manager (Purchase) at D.S.C.L., Sugar Factory, Loni, from

where he was getting Rs.36,653/- per month, but the Motor

Accident Claims Tribunal by taking hyper technical view only

considered the basic salary to compute the compensation.

5.

Sri K.S. Chaudhary appearing for the Insurance company

has heavily relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the case

of Vimal Kanwar and others Vs. Kishore Dan and others, 2013

(3) T.A.C. 6 (S.C.) so as to contend that the income of the

deceased cannot be Rs.36,563/-.

6.

Learned Tribunal with profound respect has considered

the income of the deceased to be Rs. 14,806/- per month. The

deceased was a person who was well educated and was Deputy

Manager. The reasoning given for deductions are not germane.

The judgment of Vimal Kanwar (supra) is relied on by both the

Counsels. The amount of provident fund and insurance claim

cannot be deducted as they have no co-relation. Except

superannuation head, there cannot be any deduction under

Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Hence, we are holding

that basic salary i.e. 15,275/- + special allowances Rs.1500 +

HRA Rs.7638/- + Education allowance Rs.800/- + conveyance

allowance Rs.2055/- + PF Rs.1833/- and Gratuity Rs.734/- in

total Rs.29835/- (Rs.30,000/- rounded figure) would be

admissible. The Tribunal has fallen in error in not considering

the income of Rs.30,000/- per month. We are unable to accept

the submission of learned counsel for the respondent that

income should be considered at Rs. 14,806/-. The income of the

deceased would have been non-taxable as Rs. 30,300/- in the

year of accident he would be entitled to all the deductions and,

therefore, there was no TDS deducted by the employer also and

nothing has been brought on record that he was a tax payee.

Hence, that amount cannot be deducted. Deduction of certain

allowances namely executive allowance, books and periodicals,

2

medical expenses, LTA, Superannuation, Furniture (Hard),

Furniture (Soft) is not in dispute.

7.

The Tribunal has not granted any amount towards future

loss of income. The Tribunal has not assigned any reason as to

why the judgment of Sarla Verma (supra) will not be applicable.

Hence, deceased being s