MANASVI JAINversusDELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION LTD. & ORS

                    [2014] 5 S.C.R. 573


                      MANASVI JAIN                              A
                             v.
    DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION LTD. & ORS
            (Civil Appeal No. 7642 of 2009)
                      APRIL 23, 2014
                                                                B
      [P. SATHASIVAM, CJI, RANJAN GOGOi AND
                  N.V. RAMANA, JJ.]      .

     Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: s.166 - Compensation in case
of fatal accident - Assessment of income of the deceased -      C
Held: While ascertaining the income of the deceased, any
deductions shown in the salary certificate towards GPF, life
insurance premium, repayments of loans etc., should not be
excluded from the income - The deduction towards income
tax/surcharge alone should be considered to arrive at the net   D
income of the deceased.

    The father of the appellant died in motor accident. He
was aged 55 years on the date of accident and was
working as Executive Engineer with the PWD and was              E
earning salary of Rs. 26,950 p.m. The Tribunal while
determining net monthly income of the deceased,
excluded various deductions towards GPF, House Rent,
GIS and income tax. The take home salary was
determined as Rs. 15,784 p.m. Thus, taking into
consideration his age and monthly salary at Rs. 15, 784         F
p.m., the amount of compensation of Rs. 10.10 .lacs was
held to be payable to the appellant.

    The appellant filed appeal before the High Court
seeking enhancement of compensation which was                   G
dismissed. Hence the instant appeal.

    Allowing the appeal, the Court

                             573                                H
    574      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2014] 5 S.C.R.


A        HELD: 1. It is not in dispute that the deceased was
    getting an amount of Rs. 26,924/- as monthly salary and
    Rs. 11,140/- was being deducted under various heads
    such as GPF, House Rent, G.l.S. and Income Tax. After
    taking into account these deductions, the Tribunal arrived
B at a conclusion that the net salary of the deceased is
    Rs.15, 784/- and awarded a total compensation of
 .. Rs.10,25,176/-, including Rs. 5,000/- towards funeral
    expenses and Rs. 10,000/- towards mental agony. The
    High Court did not interfere with the judgment of the
c   Tribunal. [Para 11] [577-D-F]

       2. It is clear from salary certificate that except an
  amount of Rs. 2,500/- towards Income Tax, rest of the
  amounts were voluntarily contributed by the deceased
  for the welfare of his family. Except contribution towards
D Income Tax, the other voluntary contributions made by
  the deceased, which are in the nature of savings, cannot
  be deducted from the monthly salary of the deceased to
  decide his net salary or take home salary. Hence, the take
  home salary of the deceased comes to Rs. 24,450/- which
E can be rounded to Rs. 25,000/- Accordingly, the monthly
  take home salary of the deceased is determined at Rs.
  25,000/-. Applying multiplier 8, the appellant is entitled to
  the compensation of Rs.16.15 lacs. [Paras 13 and 14] [578-
  0-H]
F
        Shyamwati Sharma & Ors. vs. Karam Singh & Ors. (2010)
    12 sec 378: 2010 (8) SCR 417 - relied on.

                          Case Law Reference:

G         2010 (8) SCR 417        Relied on            Para 11

        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
    7642 of 2009.

          Frorii the Judgment & Order dated 26.03.2008 of the High
H
         MANASVI JAIN v. DELHI TRANSPORT                     575
               CORPORATION LTD.

Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in Appeal from Order No. 484       A
of 2006.

     Rajesh Tyagi, Atishi Dipankar for the Appellant.

    M.K. Dua, Kishore Rawat, Avijit Bhattacharjee, Dr. Monika
Gusain, Hari Om Yadav, Abhinav Jain for the Respondents.            B

     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

     N.V. RAMANA, J. 1. This appeal by special leave arises
out of the Judgment and order dated 26th March, 2008 passed         C
by the High Court of Uttarakhand in a Motor Accidents Claims
Appeal No. 484 of 2006.

      2. The appellant-claimant is the son of deceased Suresh
Chandra Jain who died in a road accident. He filed a claim
petition-before th~ Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Dehradun        D
seeking compensation of an amount of Rs.36,00,000/- on the
basis that the deceased who was aged 55 years on the date
of accident, was working as Executive Engineer with the Public
Works Department of the Government of Uttarakhand and was
earning a salary of Rs.26,950/- per month.                          E

     3. The Tribunal, after taking into account the evidence on
record and also the evidence of one eyewitness to the accident,
namely, Ajay Bansal (PW 2), came to the conclusion that the
accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the bus
                                                                    F
driver-Respondent No. 2 and as such, the appellant is entitled
for compensation. According to the original salary certificate
of the deceased issued by the Executive Engineer. Public
Works Department, Uttarakhand, the gross salary of the
deceased was found to be Rs.26,950/- and after various
deductions towards GPF, House Rent, GIS and Income Tax, the         G
take home salary was determined as Rs.15, 784/- p.m. The
Tribunal considering the fact that the deqeased was 55 years
old, as evidenced by the documentary evidence, applied the
multiplier 8. Thus, taking into consideration his age and monthly
                                                                    H
    576     SUPREME COURTREPORTS                    [2014] 5 S.C.R.


A  salary at Rs.15,784/-, the Tribunal calculated the loss of
   dependency as Rs.10, 10, 176/- (2/3rd of Rs.15;784 x 12 x 8).
   1.n addition to that Rs.5,000/- was granted towards funeral
   expenses and Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and finally
   awarded Rs.10,25, 176/- as compensation with interest payable
B @ 5% p.a. from the date of institution of claim petition till the
   date ,of payment. The Tribunal also fastened the liability of
   makifig payment of compensation on the Delhi Transport
   Corporation-Respondent No. 1 as the bus which caused
  ;accident belongs to them.
c        4. Against the aforesaid order of the Tribunal, both Delhi
    Transport Corporation as well as the appellant herein have filed
    their respective appeals before the High Court. The Delhi
    Transport Corporation pleaded that the bus was insured with ·
D   National Insurance Company, therefore, the liability of mal)ing
    payment of compensation lies on the Insurance Company. On
    the other hand, the appellant's appeal was for enhancement of
    compensation.

        5. The High Court allowed the appeal of the Delhi
E   Transport Corporation and directed the National Insurance
    Company to pay the compensation amount.

          6. As far as the appeal filed by the appellant herein is
    concerned, the High Court was of the view that the amount
    awarded by the Tribunal as compensation was perfectly
F   justified. It accordingly dismissed the appellant's
                                                   _.   appeal.

        7. The appellant, not satisfied with th~ quantum of
    compensation and the rate of inte~est awarded by the Courts
    below, filed this appeal.
G
         8. The contention of the counsel for the appellant is that in
    deciding the 'take home salary' of the deceased, the Tribunal
    as well as the High Court erroneously deducted from the salary
    an amount of Rs.11, 140/- contributed by the deceased towards
H   various heads such as General Provident Fund, house rent,
         MANASVI JAIN v. DELHI TRANSPORT                      577
        CORPORATION LTD. [N.V. RAMANA, J.]                    '.,•
insurance, income tax etc. He submitted that these contributions     A
should also be treated as the income of the deceased.

     9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-
Insurance Company supported both the judgments .of the
Tribunal and the High Court.                                         B

     · 10. In view of the contentions raised on behalf of
.either side and the material placed before us, the main
question that arises for consideration is whether for the
 purpose of deciding net monthly income of the deceased,
the amount of voluntary contributions he made towards C
General, Provident Fund etc., should be included or
excluded from his salary?                              ·

      11. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the orders passed by the Tribunal and the High Court. D
It is not in dispute that the deceased was getting an amount of
Rs.26,924/- as monthly salary and Rs.11, 140/- was being
deducted under various heads such as GPF, House Rent, G.l.S.
and Income Tax. After taking into account these deductions, the
tribunal arrived at a conclusion that the net salary of the E
deceased is Rs.15, 784/- and awarded a total compensation
of Rs.10,25, 176/-, including Rs.5,000/- towards funeral
expenses and Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony. The High
Court did not interfere with the judgment of the Tribunal.

     12. This Court in Shyamwati Sharma & Ors. Vs. Karam F
Singh & Ors. (2010) 12 SCC 378, while considering the issues
of deduction of taxes, contributions etc., for arriving at the figure
of net monthly income, held that "while ascertaining the
income of the deceased, any deductions shown in the
salary certificate as deductions towards GPF, life G
insurance premium, !'epayments of loans etc., should not
be excluded from the income. The deduction towards
income tax I surcharge alone should be considered to
arrive at the net income of the deceased.
                                                                      H
    578       SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2014] 5 S.C.R.


A        13. In the present case, there is no dispute about of the
    salary of the deceased. As per salary certificate, his monthly
    income and deductions are as under:

          Monthly Income          Rs. 26,950-00
          ~



B         Deductions
          Provident Fund          8,000-00
          House Rent              525-00

c         G.l.S.                  120-00
          Income Tax              2,500-00
       So, from the above table, it is clear that except an amount
  of Rs.2,500/- towards Income Tax, rest of the amounts were
  voluntarily contributed by the deceased for the welfare of his
0
  family. Considering the decision of this Court in Shyamwati
  Sharma & Ors., (supra), in our opinion, except contribution
  towards Income Tax, the other voluntary contributions made by
  the deceased, which are in the nature of savings, cannot be
  deducted from the monthly salary of the deceased to decide
E his net salary or take home salary. Hence, the take home salary
  of the deceased comes to Rs.24,450/- which can be rounded
  to Rs.25,000/-

          14. Accordingly, we determine the monthly take home
F   salary of the deceased as Rs.25,000/-. Applying multiplier 8,
    the appellant is entitled to the compensation as under:

          Financial Loss                     Rs. 16,00,000-00

          2/3rd of 25,000 x 12 x 8
G
          Funeral Expense                    Rs. 5,000-00

          Towar.ds mental agony              Rs. 10,000-00

          Total compensation                 Rs. 16,15,000-00
H
          MANASVI JAIN v. DELHI TRANSPORT                       579
         CORPORATION LTD. [N.V. RAMANA, J.]
     The appellant is also entitled to an interest@ 6% p.a. from       A
the date of filing of the petition before the Tribunal till the date
of payment.

     15. We therefore set aside the judgments of the Courts
below and allow the appeal in the above terms with no order            8.
as to costs.

Devika Gujral                                        Appeal allowed.