Travel allowance is included as part of income for compensation calculations, reflecting a broader interpretation of income under the Motor Vehicles Act.

J U D G M E N T

[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. Indira Srivastava and others reported in (2008) 2 SCC 763. Hence, he pleads that the “income” includes the “transport allowance”. Further, the reduction of income tax is concerned, he stated that the deceased salary does not come under the purview of the income tax slab and hence, there is no need to reduce the income tax. Further, he stated that the compensation amount granted by the Court below is not liable to be deducted. It is a well-settled principle that the compensation a