In my view, the assessment of compensation made by
the Tribunal is against the settled position in law. It is well settled
position in law that except the statutory deduction to be made
towards income tax, professional tax, no other deduction is
permissible under law. The deduction from salary of the deceased towards insurance, pensionary benefts, gratuity or grant of employment to kin of deceased is not permissible. In this context, the learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance upon the decision in the case of Sebastiani Lakra & others v. National Insurance Company Ltd. & another reported at 2018 ALL SCR 2175 wherein the Apex Court has observed in paragraph nos.12 to 16 as under:-
“12. The law is well settled that deductions cannot be
allowed from the amount of compensation either on
account of insurance, or on account of pensionary
benefts or gratuity or grant of employment to akin of the
deceased. The main reason is that all these amounts are
earned by the deceased on account of contractual
relations entered into by him with others. It cannot be
said that these amounts accrued to the dependents or
the legal heirs of the deceased on account of his death in
a motor vehicle accident. The claimants/dependents are
entitled to ‘just compensation’ under the Motor Vehicles
Act as a result of the death of the deceased in a motor
vehicle accident. Therefore, the natural corollary is that
the advantage which accrues to the estate of the
deceased or to his dependents as a result of some
contract or act which the deceased performed in his life
time cannot be said to be the outcome or result of the
death of the deceased even though these amounts may
go into the hands of the dependents only after his death.
13. As far as any amount paid under any insurance
policy is concerned whatever is added to the estate of
the deceased or his dependents is not because of the
death of the deceased but because of the contract
entered into between the deceased and the insurance
company from where he took out the policy. The
deceased paid premium on such life insurance and this
amount would have accrued to the estate of the
deceased either on maturity of the policy or on his death,
whatever be the manner of his death. These amounts are
paid because the deceased has wisely invested his
savings. Similar would be the position in case of other
investments like bank deposits, share, debentures etc..
The tortfeasor cannot take advantage of the foresight
and wise fnancial investments made by the deceased.
14. As far as the amounts of pension and gratuity are
concerned, these are paid on account of the service
rendered by the deceased to his employer. It is now an
established principle of service jurisprudence that
pension and gratuity are the property of the deceased.
They are more in the nature of deferred wages. The
deceased employee works throughout his life expecting
that on his retirement he will get substantial amount as
pension and gratuity. These amounts are also payable on
death, whatever be the cause of death. Therefore,
applying the same principles, the said amount cannot be
deducted.
15. As held by the House of Lords in Perry v. Cleaver
[(1969) 1 ALL ER 555] the insurance amount is the fruit
of premium paid in the past, pension is the fruit of
services already rendered and the wrong doer should not
be given beneft of the same by deducting it from the
damages assessed.
16. Deduction can be ordered only where the
tortfeasor satisfies the court that the amount has
accrued to the claimants only on account of death of the
deceased in a motor vehicle accident.”
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO.754 OF 2012
Anita Arun Memane, Vs The Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation,
CORAM: V.L. ACHLIYA, J.
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON : 24.07.2020
Print Page
