Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 71568
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
K.K. RAMAKRISHNAN, V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN, JJ
M/s.Royal Sundaram General Insurance Co.Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Veeralakshmi, Minor A.Jenifer, Minor A.Aaron Raj, Gomathi, Aarokkiyasamy – Respondent
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, C.M.A(MD)No.411 of 2019
For the Appellant: Mr.M.E.Ilango
For the Respondents: Mr.M.P.Senthil, for R1, R2 & R3
Travel allowance is considered part of gross income for calculating compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 166 - Compensation for death in an accident - Appeal by insurance company challenging award of Rs.54,54,730/- passed by the Tribunal - Issues concerning inclusion of travel allowance in determining monthly income and application of income tax - Court upheld inclusion of travel allowance, affirming broader interpretation of income as per Supreme Court precedents. (Paras 6, 8, 15, 16)
(B) Compensation - Court emphasized need for just compensation including losses of love and affection awarded under Pranay Sethi's case, enhancing total compensation to Rs.56,14,730/-. (Paras 17, 18)
Facts of the case:
The deceased was traveling in a car when it lost control and crashed, resulting in fatal injuries. The deceased's monthly salary was argued with different components, leading to the appeal.
Findings of Court:
The Tribunal's award was upheld on grounds of including travel allowance in salary and ensuring just compensation reflecting the reality of earnings.
Issues: The key questions included whether travel allowance constitutes income and its impact on compensation calculation.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court determined that travel allowance is a part of gross salary and should be included for compensation calculations, rejecting any argument for its exclusion. It stated that statutory criteria for compensation must include all relevant income components.
Result: Appeal dismissed; compensation enhanced.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the deceased suffered fatal injuries in a negligent accident. (Para 2 , 4) |
| 2. arguments presented regarding the inclusion and treatment of travel allowance. (Para 5 , 9) |
| 3. court's view on statutory interpretations influenced the decision on income consideration. (Para 7 , 15 , 16) |
| 4. broad interpretation of income encompassing all relevant components for determining compensation. (Para 8 , 12 , 14) |
| 5. enhancement of compensation including love and affection. (Para 17 , 18) |
JUDGMENT
[Judgment of the Court was made by K.K. RAMAKRISHNAN .J.]
The Insurance company filed this appeal challenging the quantum of the award passed in M.C.O.P.No.852 of 2016, dated 26.02.2018, by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Judge/Subordinate Judge of Tirunelveli.
2.Facts of the case:
On 09.08.2018 at about 03.15.pm., the deceased was travelling in a Maruthi Swift Car bearing Registration No.TN-01-AJ-7476 belonging to the first respondent insured with the second respondent. When the car reached near Saveriyarpuram on Trichy-Dindigul National Highway, as its driver drove the same in a rash and negligent manner, the rear side tyre burst and the vehicle lost its control and gone to the right side and dashed against an Indica Car bearing Registration No.TN-01-AK-6773. As a result, the deceased along with other inmates in the Maruthi Car sustained injuries and the deceased sustained serious injuries and immediately, he was taken to Sugam Hospital at Manaparai, where he succumbed to his injuries. The deceased was working as a Executive Services in Venus Home Appliances at Chennai and earned a salary of Rs.32,000/- and hence the defendants filed a petition in MCOP No.852 of 2016 before the the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Judge/Subordinate Judge, Tirunelveli. The insurance company filed the counter denying the allegation and also liability. They also disputed the income of the deceased.
3.To prove the case, on the side of the claimant, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Ex.P1 to P17 were marked.
4.The learned tribunal judge after considering the evidence fixed the negligence upon the appellant insured vehicle and granted compensation of Rs. 54,54,730/- with the interest of 7.5% from the date of filing the petition. Challenging the same, the insurance company filed the present appeal.
5.The learned counsel for the appellant confined his argument only relating to the inclusion of the travel allowance in the monthly income of the deceased while calculating the compensation. The Learned counsel for the insurance Company submitted that the salary of the deceased as per the salary certificate is Rs.32,000/-. The salary certificate is marked as Ex.P12. In the salary certificate, the gross salary of the deceased is mentioned including the “transport allowance”. The transport allowance comes around Rs.800. According to the learned counsel for Insurance Company, the transport allowance can not be taken into consideration, while calculating the income of the deceased. For which, he relied the judgment of Division Bench of this court reported in 2001 (1) LLN 943, 2004 (1) LLN 630 and C.M.A.(MD)No.169 of 2019. He also submitted that the learned Tribunal Judge failed to deduct the income tax.
Therefore, he seeks for the reduction of the amount.
6.The learned counsel for the claimants submitted that the said judgment of the Division Bench of this Court reported in 2001 (1) LLN 943, 2004 (1) LLN 630 and C.M.A.(MD)No.169 of 2019 is arising out the interpretation of the meaning of the salary under the ESI Act, to disburse the compensation under the ESI Act. Therefore, the said principle is not applicable to the present case. The learned counsel for respondents submitted that the transport allowance forms part of the salary of the deceased. Hence, the same could not be deducted. The learned counsel further submitted that the judgment relied by the counsel is against the law laid down by the the Honourable Supreme Court judgment in the case of National Insurance Co.Ltd vs.
