In computing compensation for motor accident death claims, monthly income must include all consistent salary components representing the actual pay-packet, while mandatory statutory deductions such as Income Tax and Professional Tax must be subtracted from the total income assessment.

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND)

Heard Smt. Geetha Raj, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri A. Sreenivasaiah, learned counsel for caveator respondent Nos.1 to 3.

2. This appeal by the Insurer calls in question the judgment and award dated 09.05.2025 passed in MVC No.1190/2022 and by the Court of the III Addl. Judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru (SCCH-18) (for short “the Tribunal”), insofar as it relates to the quantum of compensation.

3. The petitioners filed a claim petition seeking compensation for the accidental death of one Divya Ettikan on 12.02.2022, involving a car bearing No.TN-32-AC-0666. It is stated that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the said car by its driver. As on the date of the accident, the deceased was aged 29 years and was working as a Senior Project Engineer at WIPRO Ltd., earning a monthly salary of Rs.50,000/-. The petitioners are the father-in-law and two minor children of the deceased.

3.1 Though notice was served, respondent No.1 therein (husband of the deceased) remained absent and was placed ex parte. The Insurer appeared and filed its written statement.

3.2 Respondent No.2–Insurer has not disputed the occurrence of the accident or the involvement of the vehicle; however, it has denied actionable negligence on the part of the driver of the car. The Tribunal recorded common evidence in respect of two claim petitions arising out of the same accident—one pertaining to the death of Divya Ettikan and the other relating to the injuries sustained by Master K. Abhinav. The Tribunal recorded the evidence of six witnesses on behalf of the petitioners and marked Exs.P1 to P51. The evidence of RW.1 was recorded on behalf of the respondents, and no documents were marked.

3.3 The Tribunal, while computing the monthly income, considered a sum of Rs.46,667/- as the income per month based on Ex.P.35—pay slip. The age of the deceased was taken as 30 years; a multiplier of 17 was applied; 1/3rd was deducted towards personal expenses; and 40% was added towards future prospects. The Tribunal also awarded compensation under conventional heads. In total, the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.89,70,214/-.

4. Smt. Geetha Raj, learned counsel appearing for the appellant–Insurer submits that the Tribunal has committed an error in taking the entire income as reflected in Ex.P.35. It is contended that, out of the income shown in Ex.P.35, the amounts towards bonus and GRPALLW, namely Rs.3,500/- and Rs.10,039/- respectively, are liable to be deducted, as the same do not form part of the salary. Learned counsel further submits that the Tribunal has erred in not deducting Income Tax and Professional Tax. However, learned counsel does not dispute the age of the deceased, the applied multiplier, the deductions made, or the percentage of future prospects.

5. Sri A. Sreenivasaiah, learned counsel appearing for the caveator/respondent Nos.1 to 3 submits that the income has been rightly considered on the basis of the proved document, namely Ex.P.35—pay slip. It is contended that the amounts towards bonus and GRPALLW form part of the salary package, are paid consistently, and are permanent in nature. It is further submitted that, while computing compensation, the income of the deceased is to be taken into consideration. However, learned counsel is unable to dispute that Income Tax and Professional Tax are liable to be deducted.

6. Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the appeal papers, this Court partly accep