9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (7) TMI 177X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt since the same is not just and proper commensurate to the loss suffered by them on account of death of the deceased in a motor vehicular accident dated 28th July, 2016. (ii) M.A.C. Case No. 857 of 2023: Whereas the present appeal is filed by the Insurance Company assailing the correctness of the impugned award disputing the liability as well as the compensation allowed for an amount of Rs. 33,58,657/- with interest at the rate of 7% per annum on the grounds inter alia that the learned Tribunal committed error in accepting the plea of the claimants and in the determination of the compensation, hence, the same deserves to be interfered with and set aside. 3. Heard Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the claimants, Mr. Das, learned counsel for the owner of the offending vehicle and Mr. Dasmohapatra, learned counsel for the Insurance Company. 4. Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the claimants would submit that though the learned Tribunal held that the accident has taken place involving the offending vehicle (Truck) bearing registration No. OR-06G-8473 but fell into gross error, while computing the amount of compensation. It is contended by Mr. Mohanty that the learned Tribunal instea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been violation of policy conditions as well which the learned Tribunal failed to take cognizance of and therefore, Mr. Dasmohapatra finally contends that the impugned award dated 10th February, 2023 calls for interference. 7. As per the facts pleaded on record, the accident took place on 28th July, 2016 at about 8 P.M. at a time when the deceased was returning to a place in a motor cycle bearing registration No. OR- 06H-3819 and met with the accident near the spot as the offending tanker arrived there at a very high speed being driven in a rash and negligent manner and dashed him from back, as a result of which, he sustained multiple grievous injuries and though shifted to DHH, Dhenkanal but was declared brought dead. After the death of the deceased, the claimants filed the application under Section 166 of the M.V. Act for compensation which has led to the passing of the impugned award on 10th February, 2023. The owner of the offending truck and the Insurance Company contested the claim application, which was disposed of allowing compensation of Rs. 33,58,657/- with interest. 8. With the pleading of the claimants and materials on record, the learned Tribunal framed the following ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eath, the Court is of the view that the annual income with such tax deduction should be accepted at Rs. 1,76,496/-. In other words, the Court is inclined to accept the plea of Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the claimants and fix the annual income of the deceased at Rs. 1,76,496/- allowing the tax deductions for the years 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15. 10. With respect to the income towards the heavy goods vehicles, an amount of Rs. 60,000/- has been added to the annual income. Mr. Mohanty refers to Section 44-AE of the Income Tax Act to claim that at least, an amount of Rs. 7,500/- a month should have been assessed at instead of Rs. 5,000/-. Mr. Dasmohapatra, learned counsel for the Insurance Company, while denying the liability, would contend that an amount of Rs. 60,000/- a year added is outrightly a surplusage and hence, need not be enhanced further with a sum of Rs. 7,500/- per month. The said provision of the Income Tax Act is in respect of presumptive taxation for ascertaining income for a particular financial year applicable to all types of assessees. According to Section 44-AE of the Income Tax Act, small business engaged in plying, hiring or leasing goods carriage having ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n record, the plea as to violation of policy condition is not to be accepted. In any case, Exts. D and E proved such claim to be incorrect. Hence, it is held that the contention of Mr. Dasmohapatra with such a plea is liable to be rejected. But, as already held, the plea that the amount on conventional heads for an amount of Rs. 1,20,000/- should be Rs. 70,000/- is acceptable and to which, the Court is in complete agreement. 12. With such conclusion, the amount of compensation is to be accordingly recalculated. The annual income of the deceased is to be reassessed at Rs. 1,76,496/- taking into account average income of previous three years, such as, 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15. Over and above, the said amount, assuming the income from the heavy goods vehicles of the deceased, the Court is inclined to add an amount of Rs. 22,500/- only (not counting for the entire year) since the hypothecated TATA ACE and JCB had been purchased shortly before the accident. No evidence is on record either to ascertain, if both the vehicles are still with the claimants or in the meantime, disposed of after the death of the deceased. Anyways, the income with an additional sum of Rs. 22,500/- becomes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
