Loss of love and affection cannot be separately compensated under an unrecognized conventional head.

In brief

The question

Whether the Tribunal’s assessment of the deceased’s income required a further deduction for income tax or professional tax.

The court held

The appeal was partly allowed.

It also directed

The Court reduced the award from ₹65,16,000 to ₹64,66,000 by deducting ₹50,000, and directed the insurer to pay the reduced sum within two months, with interest at 6% per annum from the date the claim petition was filed until payment.

The Tribunal’s disbursement directions were left undisturbed.

01Facts

The claimants sought compensation for the death of Tanmoy Rudra Paul, who was fatally injured in a collision between his motorcycle and an auto-rickshaw insured by the appellant.

pp. 2–5

The Tribunal awarded compensation of ₹65,16,000. The insurer appealed, disputing, among other matters, the treatment of the deceased’s income and the father’s dependency, and challenging an award of ₹50,000 for loss of love, care, affection and guidance.

pp. 2–5

02Issues

i.Whether the Tribunal’s assessment of the deceased’s income required a further deduction for income tax or professional tax.

p. 5

ii.Whether the deceased’s father was established to be dependent on the deceased’s income.

p. 6

iii.Whether the Tribunal could award ₹50,000 for loss of love, care, affection and guidance.

p. 7

iv.Whether the insurer’s appeal warranted any further reduction or remand for redetermination of compensation.

pp. 3, 6–7

03Law Applied

The appeal was brought under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

p. 2

The Court considered the principles referred to from Sarla Verma concerning deductions in determining compensation and the insurer’s reliance on National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi concerning conventional heads of compensation.

p. 3

It held that a deduction for tax must be supported by the evidence and circumstances of the case; dependency may be accepted where it is stated in evidence and is not effectively challenged; and an additional award for loss of love, care, affection and guidance is not justified where the Tribunal has already considered dependency and conventional amounts.

pp. 6–7

Provisions in the judgment · 2 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 173

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 279

04Reasoning

The salary slip showed a professional-tax deduction but no income-tax deduction, and the insurer had neither put the issue of tax deductions to the claimant in cross-examination nor adduced evidence to support a further deduction. The Court therefore declined to alter the income assessment on that ground.

p. 6

It likewise upheld the father’s dependency because the claimant’s affidavit stated that the deceased’s parents depended on his income, and the insurer had not challenged that evidence or produced contrary evidence.

p. 6

However, it found that the separate ₹50,000 award for love, care, affection and guidance lacked a proper basis, as the Tribunal had already considered dependency and conventional amounts.

p. 7

The Court did not order a remand for recalculation.

pp. 6–7