Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: cma in The New India Ass. Co. Ltd vs Smt. Neelam And Ors on 8 November, 2024Matching Fragments
Judgment Reserved on: 23/10/2024 Pronounced on :08/11/2024
1. These misc. appeals have been preferred by both, claimants seeking enhancement of the compensation (CMA Nos.587/2016, 586/2016 & 589/2016) and non-claimant No.3 i.e. The New India Assurance Company Ltd. (CMA Nos.1028/2016, 1030/2016, 1031/2016, 1034/2016, 1037/2016 & 1029/2016) under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('Act') assailing the validity of the impugned judgment and award dated 08.01.2016 passed by [2024:RJ-JD:44104] (6 of 25) [CMA-587/2016] learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Labour Court), Sri Ganganagar ('Tribunal') in MAC Cases No.23/2010, 24/2010, 25/2010, 34/2010, 35/2010 & 36/2010 respectively, whereby the learned Tribunal awarded compensation in favour of respective claimants along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the claim petition(s) and the liability to pay the compensation was fastened upon non-claimants No.1, 2 and 3 jointly and severally.
9. Aggrieved by the same, the misc. appeals - S.B.CMA no.586/2016 (wherein award passed in MAC Case No.23/2010 is challenged), S.B.CMA no.587/2016 (wherein the award passed in MAC Case No.34/2010 is challenged) and S.B.CMA no.589/2016 (wherein the award passed in MAC Case No.25/2010 is challenged) have been preferred by the respective claimants. And the misc. appeals - S.B.CMA no.1028/2016 (wherein the award passed in MAC Case No.23/2010 is challenged), S.B.CMA no.1030/2016 (wherein the award passed in MAC Case No.36/2010 is challenged), S.B.CMA no.1031/2016 (wherein the award passed in MAC Case No.25/2010 is challenged), S.B.CMA no.1034/2016 (wherein the award passed in MAC Case No.24/2010 is challenged), S.B.CMA no.1037/2016 (wherein the award passed in MAC Case No.34/2010 is challenged) and S.B.CMA no.1029/2016 (wherein the award passed in MAC Case [2024:RJ-JD:44104] (10 of 25) [CMA-587/2016] No.35/2010 is challenged) have been preferred by the non- claimant no.3/insurance company. The misc. appeals preferred by the appellant/non-claimant No.3 viz. CMA Nos.1028/2016, 1029/2016, 1030/2216, 1031/2016 and 1037/2016, were admitted by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 30.05.2016 and the stay applications were rejected.
15. Learned Counsel for the non-claimant no.3-Insurance Company in S.B.CMA no.586/2016, S.B.CMA no.587/2016, [2024:RJ-JD:44104] (13 of 25) [CMA-587/2016] S.B.CMA no.589/2016, S.B.CMA no.1028/2016, S.B.CMA no.1030/2016, S.B.CMA no.1031/2016, S.B.CMA no.1037/2016 and S.B.CMA no.1029/2016, restricted his arguments only to the issue of negligence.
16. Learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company in S.B.CMA no.1034/2016 (wherein the award passed in MAC Case No.24/2010 is challenged) submitted that the learned tribunal was not justified in awarding compensation of Rs.24,58,560/- under the head of loss of income/dependency on account of death of deceased-Rampratap (father of the appellant/claimant), inasmuch as the learned Tribunal has not deducted income tax for the purpose of assessing the net income of the deceased while determining the income of the deceased as per the income slab of the relevant year i.e. 2009-10. He further submitted that the learned tribunal has erred in making deduction of 1/3 instead of 1/2 on account of personal expenses of the deceased-Rampratap as there is only one dependant/claimant.
30. Accordingly and in view of above discussion, this Court finds no force in the misc. appeals (CMA Nos. 1028/2016, 1029/2016, 1030/2216, 1031/2016 and 1037/2016) preferred by the appellant/non-claimant No.3-insurance company, and, therefore, the same are dismissed being devoid of any merit. [2024:RJ-JD:44104] (23 of 25) [CMA-587/2016]
31. So far as CMA No.1034/2016 preferred by the appellant/non- claimant No.3 is concerned, this Court finds force in the submission made by counsel for the appellant that income tax ought to have been deducted from the gross income of the deceased- Ram Pratap. It is settled law, as propounded by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vimal Kanwar & Ors. v. Kishore Dan & Ors. : 2013 ACJ 1441, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that while assessing/quantifying the compensation under the loss of income/dependency, the tax payable on the income of the deceased has to be deducted and thus taking into consideration the tax slab of the relevant year i.e. 2009-10, the tax payable on the annual income of the deceased ought to be deducted while adding 30% towards future prospects and applying the multiplier of 13. The claimant is also held entitle to get compensation of Rs.18,150/- under the head of loss of estate.