Court No. - 3
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 2545 of 2018 Appellant :- Smt. Aarti Tiwari And 3 Others Respondent :- The Oriental Insurance Comapny Ltd. And 2 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Deepali Srivastava Sinha,Amit Kumar Sinha
Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal,J. Hon'ble Rajiv Joshi,J.
Heard Sri Amit Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the claimant-appellants.
They have preferred this appeal for the enhancement of compensation of Rs. 49,25,404/- awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal with 7% per annum.
In the accident between the motorcycle and that of DCM vehicle, one Pramod Kumar Tiwari died. He was working in the Central Reserve Police Force and was drawing salary of Rs. 41,643/- per month. He left behind his wife, a son and a daughter. He was aged about 30 years. The Tribunal held that the accident took place due to the negligence of both the parties and apportioned the negligence in the ratio of 20:80 i.e. 20% of the motorcycle rider and 80% on part of the driver of the DCM.
The submission of Sri Amit Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the appellant is that there is no evidence to prove that the deceased had contributed to the accident. Secondly, certain allowances were wrongly deducted from the income of the deceased for the purposes of awarding compensation.
The accident took place on a conjusted triangular road, when the motorcycle was turning to the left. The evidence of the PW-2 only proves that the DCM vehicle was coming with high speed and had dashed with the motorcycle. His evidence is not sufficient to prove that there was no negligence on part of the motorcycle rider. It has also not come in evidence that the DCM vehicle came on the wrong side of the road and hit the motorcycle.
Thus, in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, if the Tribunal has assessed the liability of the motorcycle rider to be 20% in the accident, we do not consider that it is in any way arbitrary or illegal. In most of the accidents with the motorcycle some negligence can always be attributed to the motorcycle rider unless the evidence is entirely to the contrary.
Now, coming to the deductions, which have been made from the salary of the deceased, it may be noted that the ration allowance, washing allowance, T.P.T and income tax have been deducted from the income of the deceased for awarding the compensation. The aforesaid allowances are for personal use of the person concern and are not available to the family members. The washing allowance is for the washing of uniform and is not for the benefit of the family. Similarly, transport and uniform allowances are also not available for the benefit of the family members. Therefore, the same have rightly been deducted in assessing the income of the deceased used by the family members.
It is settled law that the ultimate income which comes into the hand of the deceased i.e. after deduction of the income tax alone is available to the family.
In view of the above, no illegal deduction has been made from the income of the deceased either towards ration allowance, washing allowance, transport allowance or income tax.
Accordingly, we do not find that any case for further enhancement of compensation has been made.
The appeal lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 29.5.2018 Noman