JUDGMENT

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the award passed in M.C.O.P.No.491 of 2017, dated 28.02.2019, on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / VI Additional District Court, Madurai.

2. The appellants / claimants, who were awarded with the compensation of Rs.45,82,560/- with interest at 7.5% per annum payable by the respondents 1 & 2 for the death of Sukumaran, who died in an accident occurred 17.01.2017 challenged the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal and claimed enhancement of the same.

3. Admittedly, the first petitioner / first claimant is the wife, the second petitioner / second claimant is the son and the third petitioner /

third claimant is the daughter of the deceased Sukumaran.

4. The learned Trial Judge, after conducting enquiry, has passed the impugned award on 28.02.2019, holding that the respondents 1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation and fixing the compensation at Rs.45,85,560/-, directed the respondents 1 & 2 to pay the said compensation amount with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of award till the date of payment, excluding the default period. The only contention of the appellants / claimants is that the Tribunal has deducted 10% of the income towards income tax erroneously and that they have challenged the quantum arrived at by the Tribunal on the ground that the Tribunal has committed mistake in calculating the amount and the Tribunal erred in deducting 10% of the income towards income tax.

5. The learned Counsel for the appellants would submit that the Tribunal failed to appreciate that Exs.P.20 to P.24 - Form 16 for the salary issued to the deceased, given by his employer showing Nil Tax Deduction at source as there was no income tax payable by him from the financial years 2013 – 2014 to 2017 – 2018 till his death; that the Tribunal has also failed to consider that there was Nil tax for the pension received by the deceased and as such, no tax deduction was made at source; that the Tribunal has also failed to consider that income tax was deducted at source for the arrears paid in lump sum due to revision of pension during September 2016 and the endorsement made by the competent authority - State Bank of India as tax deduction on pension as Nil in the pension slip given by them; that the Tribunal erred in deducting income tax at 10% and that therefore, the finding of the Tribunal deducting the income tax at 10%, is liable to be set aside. The learned Counsel for the appellants has relied on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Vimal Kanwar and others vs. Kishore Dan and others reported in (2013) 7 Supreme Court Cases 476, wherein it is held as follows:

“22. In the present case, none of the respondents brought to the notice of the Court that the income-tax payable by the deceased Sajjjan Singh was not deducted at source by the employer-State Government. No such statement was made by Ram Avtar Parikh, PW-2 an employee of Public Works Department of the State Government who placed on record the Last Pay Certificate and the Service Book of the deceased. The Tribunal or the High Court on perusal of the Last Pay Certificate, have not noticed that the income-tax on the estimated income of the employee was not deducted from the salary of the absence of such evidence, it is presumed that the salary paid to the deceased Sajjan Singh as per Last Pay Certificate was paid in accordance with law i.e. by deducting the income-tax on the estimated income of the deceased Sajjjan Singh for that month or the Financial Year. The appellants have specifically stated that Assessment Year applicable in the instant case is 1997-98 and not 1996-97 as held by the High Court. They have also taken specific plea that for the Assessment year 1997-98 the rate of tax on income more than 40,000/- and upto Rs.60,000/- was 15% and not 20% as held by the High Court. The aforesaid fact has not been disputed by the respondents.

23. In view of the finding as recorded ab