Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2015 (5) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (5) TMI 824 - HC - Indian LawsLiability to pay compensation - motor vehicle accident - whether once the vehicle was insured, the Government would not be liable to pay the compensation? - Held that:- As per the evidence placed before the Tribunal, no proof was produced to effect the service of requisition order. The Tribunal on facts found that the requisition order was not served upon the owner. Under these circumstances, if the owner had not paid the amount and the vehicle was under the requisition and in possession of the Government, if the Tribunal has fastened the liability upon the Government, such approach on the part of the Tribunal could not be said to be erroneous on the ground sought to be canvassed. - Decided against revenue. Higher amount of compensation awarded - Held that:- In Accounting Year 2005 – 2006, the exemption limit was up to ₹ 1,00,000/- and, therefore, upto ₹ 1,00,000/- there was no question of making any deduction of income tax. So far as the amount of income above ₹ 1,00,000/- i.e. ₹ 1,48,161/-, the tax would be ₹ 48,461/- on the basis of tax slab of 10%. It would be roughly ₹ 4,800/- per year and if multiplier of 14 is considered, the said amount would be ₹ 67,200/- towards deduction of income tax. At the same time, another relevant aspect is that the Tribunal has awarded a meager amount of ₹ 10,000/- towards loss of consortium, ₹ 10,000/- towards loss of love and affection and ₹ 10,000/- towards loss of estate totaling to ₹ 30,000/-. Thus for the conjoint heads of loss of estate, loss of love and affection and loss of consortium, the amount of ₹ 1,00,000/- was required to be awarded by the Tribunal. If the difference is considered, it is less by ₹ 70,000/-. As against the same, as observed earlier, towards income tax deduction, such amount would come to ₹ 67,00/- and hence, both the aforesaid aspects if considered, ultimately, there will not be any substantial difference in the total amount awarded by the Tribunal. Hence, we find that the amount already awarded by the Tribunal would meet with principle of just compensation and, therefore, we find that on such ground, no interference would be called for and the said contention, therefore, would fail. - Decided against revenue.
|