Page 1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7642 OF 2009

MANASVI JAIN             … APPELLANT

VERSUS

DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION       … RESPONDENTS

JUDGMENT

N.V. RAMANA, J.

This appeal by special leave arises out of the Judgment and order  

dated 26th March, 2008 passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand in a Motor  

Accidents Claims Appeal No. 484 of 2006.

2. The appellant-claimant is the son of deceased Suresh Chandra Jain  

who died in  a road accident.  He filed a claim petition before the Motor  

Accidents Claim Tribunal, Dehradun seeking compensation of an amount  

1

Page 2

of Rs.36,00,000/- on the basis that the deceased who was aged 55 years  

on the date of accident, was working as Executive Engineer with the Public  

Works Department of the Government of Uttarakhand and was earning a  

salary of Rs.26,950/- per month.  

3. The Tribunal, after taking into account the evidence on record and  

also the evidence of one eyewitness to the accident, namely, Ajay Bansal  

(PW 2),   came to the conclusion that the accident took place due to rash  

and negligent driving of the bus driver—Respondent No. 2 and as such, the  

appellant  is  entitled  for  compensation.  According  to  the  original  salary  

certificate of the deceased issued by the Executive Engineer, Public Works  

Department, Uttarakhand, the gross salary of the deceased was found to  

be Rs.26,950/-  and after  various deductions towards GPF, House Rent,  

GIS and Income Tax, the take home salary was determined as Rs.15,784/-  

p.m. The Tribunal considering the fact that the deceased was 55 years old,  

as evidenced by the documentary evidence, applied the multiplier 8.  Thus,  

taking into consideration his age and monthly salary at  Rs.15,784/-,  the  

Tribunal  calculated  the  loss  of  dependency  as  Rs.10,10,176/-  (2/3rd of  

Rs.15,784 x 12 x 8).  In addition to that Rs.5,000/- was granted towards  

funeral  expenses  and  Rs.10,000/-  towards  mental  agony  and  finally  

awarded Rs.10,25,176/- as compensation with interest payable @ 5% p.a.  

2

Page 3

from the date of institution of claim petition till  the date of payment. The  

Tribunal also fastened the liability of making payment of compensation on  

the  Delhi  Transport  Corporation-Respondent  No.  1  as  the  bus  which  

caused accident belongs to them.  

4. Against  the  aforesaid  order  of  the  Tribunal,  both  Delhi  Transport  

Corporation  as  well  as  the  appellant  herein  have  filed  their  respective  

appeals before the High Court. The Delhi Transport Corporation pleaded  

that the bus was insured with National Insurance Company, therefore, the  

liability  of  making  payment  of  compensation  lies  on  the  Insurance  

Company. On the other hand, the appellant’s appeal was for enhancement  

of compensation.

5. The High Court allowed the appeal of the Delhi Transport Corporation  

and directed the National  Insurance Company to pay the compensation  

amount.

6. As far as the appeal filed by the appellant herein is concerned, the  

High Court was of the view that the amount awarded by the Tribunal as  

compensation  was  perfectly  justified.  It  accordingly  dismissed  the  

appellant’s appeal.

7. The appellant, not satisfied with the quantum of compensation and  

the rate of interest awarded by the Courts below, filed this appeal.

3

Page 4

8. The contention of the counsel for the appellant is that in deciding the  

‘take home salary’ of the deceased, the Tribunal as well as the High Court  

erroneously deducted from the salary an amount of Rs.11,140/- contributed  

by the deceased towards various heads such as General Provident Fund,  

house  rent,  insurance,  income  tax  etc.  He  submitted  that  these  

contributions should also be treated as the income of the deceased.  

9. On the  other  hand,  learned  counsel  for  the  respondent-Insurance  

Company supported both the judgments of the Tribunal and the High Court.

10. In view of the contentions raised on behalf of either side and the  

material  placed  before  us,  the  main  question  that  arises  for  

consideration  is  whether  for  the  purpose  of  deciding  net  monthly  

income of  the deceased,  the amount of  voluntary contributions he  

made towards General  Provident  Fund etc.,  should be included or  

excluded from his salary?

11. We  have  heard  learned  counsel  for  the  parties  and  perused  the  

orders passed by the Tribunal and the High Court. It is not in dispute that  

the deceased was getting an amount of Rs.26,924/- as monthly salary and  

Rs.11,140/- was being deducted under various heads such as GPF, House  

Rent, G.I.S. and Income Tax. After taking into account these deductions,  

the tribunal arrived at a conclusion that the net salary of the deceased is  

4

Page 5

Rs.15,784/- and awarded a total compensation of Rs.10,25,176/-, including  

Rs.5,000/-  towards  funeral  expenses  and  Rs.10,000/-  towards  mental  

agony. The High Court did not interfere with the judgment of the Tribunal.

12. This Court in Shyamwati Sharma & Ors. Vs. Karam Singh & Ors.  

(2010) 12 SCC 378,  while considering the issues of deduction of taxes,  

contributions etc., for arriving at the figure of net monthly income, held that  

“while  ascertaining  the  income  of  the  deceased,  any  deductions   

shown  in  the  salary  certificate  as  deductions  towards  GPF,  life   

insurance premium, repayments of loans etc., should not be excluded  

from the  income.   The deduction  towards  income tax  /  surcharge   

alone  should  be  considered  to  arrive  at  the  net  income  of  the   

deceased.

13. In the present case, there is no dispute about of the salary of the  

deceased. As per salary certificate, his monthly income and deductions are  

as under:

Monthly Income Rs. 26,950-00

Deductions

Provident Fund 8,000-00 House Rent 525-00 G.I.S. 120-00 Income Tax 2,500-00

5

Page 6

So, from the above table, it is clear that except an amount of Rs.2,500/-  

towards Income Tax, rest of the amounts were voluntarily contributed by  

the deceased for the welfare of his family. Considering the decision of this  

Court  in  Shyamwati  Sharma  &  Ors., (supra),  in  our  opinion,  except  

contribution towards Income Tax, the other voluntary contributions made by  

the deceased, which are in the nature of savings, cannot be deducted from  

the monthly salary of the deceased to decide his net salary or take home  

salary. Hence, the take home salary of the deceased comes to Rs.24,450/-  

which can be rounded to Rs.25,000/-

14. Accordingly,  we  determine  the  monthly  take  home  salary  of  the  

deceased as Rs.25,000/-. Applying multiplier 8, the appellant is entitled to  

the compensation as under:

Financial Loss Rs. 16,00,000-00 2/3rd of 25,000 x 12 x 8

Funeral Expense Rs.        5,000-00

Towards mental agony Rs.       10,000-00

     ---------------------------

Total compensation       Rs. 16,15,000-00

    -----------------------

6

Page 7

The appellant is also entitled to an interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing  

of the petition before the Tribunal till the date of payment.

15. We therefore set aside the judgments of the Courts below and allow  

the appeal in the above terms with no order as to costs.

…………………………………………CJI. (P. SATHASIVAM)

……………………………………………J. (RANJAN GOGOI)

……………………………………………J. (N.V. RAMANA)

NEW DELHI, APRIL 23,  2014  

7