Limited v. As Per The Income Tax Slab Prescribed For The Financial Year 2018-2019,There Was No Income Tax Payable Upto Rs.2,50,000/ And Thereafter Uptors.5,00,000/-, The I

Signature Not Verified SAN 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESHAT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWALON THE 23[rd] OF NOVEMBER, 2022 MISC. APPEAL No. 1124 of 2022 BETWEEN:- THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGHTHE FIELD DIRECTOR KANHA TIGER RESERVEMANDLA DISTRICT MANDLA (M.P.) (MADHYAPRADESH) .....APPELLANT (BY SHRI ROHIT JAIN, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE) AND1.MINAL SINGH W/O LATE SHRI PRATAP SINGH,AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/O WARD NO 13PANCHAYAT BHAWAN KE PAS GOREGAOKHURD POST SATNA (M.P.) PRESENT R/OMATHERNDRA KUMAR PATEL MIGB-6 NEWHOUSING BOARD COLONY VISHRAM BABAMAHARANAPRATAP WARD KATNI, DISTRICTKATNI (M.P.) (MADHYA PRADESH) 2.SANJAY PRAJAPATI S/O RAMKRISHANPRAJAPATI R/O WARD NO. 15 RAHELI THANARAHELI, DISTRICT SAGAR (M.P.) (MADHYAPRADESH) .....RESPONDENTS (RESPONDENT NO.1 BY SHRI A.S.PARIHAR, ADVOCATE) This appeal coming on for admission this day, the court passed the following: ORDER Learned counsel for the parties admit that there is typographical error inthe cause title of the impugned award dated 30.7.2021 passed by learned IIIMotor Accident Claims Tribunal, Katni in Motor Accident Claim CaseNo.904/2018 wherein Minal Singh is shown as Son of Late Shri Pratap Singh Signature Not Verified SAN whereas Minal Singh is Widow of Late Shri Pratap Singh. This Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the appellant/State being aggrievedof award dated 30.7.2021 passed by learned III Motor Accident ClaimsTribunal, Katni in Motor Accident Claim Case No.904/2018 mainly on fourgrounds; (1) the Claims Tribunal has erred in making deduction of 1/3rd fromthe income of the deceased towards living expenses of the deceased whereasMinal Singh Widow of Late Shri Pratap Singh is the sole dependent and,therefore, 50% deduction should have been made towards the living expenses.(2) Certain amount of ex-gratia etc was granted in favour of the claimant onaccount of death of her husband and that amount should have been adjustedfrom the claim amount. (3) Since the claimant has been granted compassionateappointment, therefore, the salary drawn by the claimant on account of thecompassionate appointment should have been deducted. (4) The Income Taxof only Rs.4,000/- per month and Professional Tax of Rs.208/- per month arededucted, which infact should have been deducted as per the Income Tax Slab. As far as the first ground of deduction is concerned, that has beenclarified by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (Smt) & Othersversus Delhi Transport Corporation & Another (2009) 6 SCC 121wherein it is held that 50% deduction is to be made in case of a bachelor. In thepresent case, admittedly, the deceased was not a bachelor. He is survived byhis wife and, therefore, the first ground that 50% deduction should have beenmade, is not made out. As far as second and third grounds of deduction of ex-gratia or theamount being received by the claimant on account of the compassionateappointment are concerned, they have been dealt with by this Court inMiscellaneous Appeal No.110/2016 (Oriental Insurance Company Signature Not VerifiedSAN Limited versus Smt.Shakuntala Pathak & Other) vide order dated28.7.2022 wherein placing reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble the SupremeCourt in Vimal Kanwar & Others versus Kishore Dan & Others (2013) 7SCC 476, it is held that the pecuniary advantages received from other sourcesby reason of victim's death will not be deducted while determining thecompensation under the Motor Vehicles Act. Hence, in the light of the law laiddown by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Vimal Kanwar & Others versusKishore Dan & Others (supra), even the second and third grounds raised bylearned Government Advocate for the appellant/State are not made out. Signature Not VerifiedSAN Limited versus Smt.Shakuntala Pathak & Other) vide order dated28.7.2022 wherein placing reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble the SupremeCourt in Vimal Kanwar & Others versus Kishore Dan & Others (2013) 7SCC 476, it is held that the pecuniary advantages received from other sourcesby reason of victim's death will not be deducted while determining thecompensation under the Motor Vehicles Act. Hence, in the light of the law laiddown by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Vimal Kanwar & Others versusKishore Dan & Others (supra), even the second and third grounds raised bylearned Government Advocate for the appellant/State are not made out. As far as the fourth ground of deduction of the Income Tax of onlyRs.4,000/- per month and the Professional Tax of Rs.208/- per month areconcerned, that has some merit. The Income Tax is to be deducted on the basisof a structured formula. For the Financial Year 2018-2019, the annual income ofthe deceased is assessed at Rs.8,34,600/- from which a sum of Rs.2,500/- is tobe deducted towards Professional Tax and thereafter a sum of Rs.4,800/- isdeducted towards Group Insurance Scheme under Section 80C of the IncomeTax Act, 1961 and thereafter the standard deduction of Rs.50,000/- is to bemade then the net taxable income will come out to Rs.7,77,300/-. As per the Income Tax Slab prescribed for the Financial Year 2018-2019,there was no Income Tax payable upto Rs.2,50,000/ and thereafter uptoRs.5,00,000/-, the Income Tax @ 5% is payable and for the remaining amountupto Rs.10,00,000/-, the Income Tax @ 20% is payable. Thus, the total taxliability will come out to Rs.67,960/- out of which Rs.48,000/- has beendeducted by the Claims Tribunal, therefore, there will be additional deduction ofthe Income Tax to the tune of Rs.19,960/- and accordingly the calculation is to Signature Not VerifiedSAN be made. The net income of the deceased comes out to Rs.8,34,600/-. Afterdeduction of the Income Tax of Rs.67,960/- and then deduction of ProfessionalTax of Rs.2,500/-, the income on which the compensation is to be calculatedcomes out to Rs.7,64,140/-. 1/3rd deduction is to be made towards livingexpenses of the deceased leaving the income of Rs.5,09,427/-. The age of thedeceased at the time of the accident was 35 years and, therefore, 50% is to beadded towards future prospect and when the multiplier of 16 is applicable thenthe total pecuniary compensation will come out to Rs.1,22,26,248/- over andabove which the claimant is entitled to a sum of Rs.77,000/- under the head ofnon-pecuniary compensation, therefore, the total amount will come out toRs.1,23,03,248/-. Thus, there will be reduction (Rs.1,26,22,664-Rs.1,23,03,248)to the tune of Rs.3,19,416/- (Rupees Three Lakh Nineteen Thousand FourHundred Sixteen Only) to which the appellant/State will be entitled to reducewhile making payment of compensation to the claimant alongwith interest as hasbeen awarded by the Claims Tribunal. The other terms and conditions of the award shall remain intact. Accordingly, this Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of. (VIVEK AGARWAL)JUDGE amit