GUWAHATI, India, Jan. 3 -- Gauhati High Court issued the following order on Dec. 2:

1. Heard learned counsel Ms. R.D. Mozumdar for the National Insurance Company and learned counsel Mr. M. Mahanta, for the claimants, Rima Koushik Sarma, Surangana Kashyap and Mrs. Bhanu Sarmah.

2. Both this appeal and cross objection are taken up together as both the cases arise out of the same original case which is registered as MAC Case No.86/2014. In the appeal Smti Bhanu Sarma was earlier not arrayed as a respondent, but by the order of this Court dated 14.10.2020, Smt Bhanu Sarma, who was also a claimant in the original case has been arrayed as respondent No.6 in the appeal. Smt Bhanu Sarma has not been arrayed as an appellant in the cross-objection. Arguments for the Appellant

3. Learned counsel for the insurer is aggrieved by the calculation which is alleged to be erroneous. The income of the asessee/ deceased was Rs. 33,728/- per month but income tax was not deducted while calculating the compensation. It is further submitted that the mother of the deceased, Smt Bhanu Sarma is residing with another son and cannot be arrayed as a party. The deduction of 1/3rd as personal expenses instead of 1/4th would be correct as the mother of the deceased has been continuously residing with another son and not with the deceased. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the insurer that the wife was not an eyewitness and an FIR was lodged against Dipak Kumar Sarmah with allegation that he was responsible for rash and negligent act which led to the accident. The MVI report shows head-on collision between both vehicles and front part of both the vehicles have been damaged. The exhibits submitted by the claimants are all photocopies and thus cannot be accepted as valid evidence. The deceased was an employee under the Assam Police and he may have received his medical expenses and thus Exhibits- 2 to 6 and Exhibits- 9, 11 and 13 are all photocopies. The house rent and medical expenses are personal to the deceased, but this has not been deducted in this case.

4. The learned counsel for the insurer has laid stress in her argument that 12% interest which the claimants have stressed is in context to Workmen's Compensation Act and the claimants in their prayer have prayed for only 7.5% of interest to be added to the compensation. Arguments for the Claimants;

5. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the claimants laid stress in his argument that Tax was deducted from the monthly income of the deceased, contrary to the submission of the learned counsel for the insurer. After calculation of the gross amount, tax was deducted. Mother may be residing with another son, but mother is naturally a dependent of her kin. The testimonies of the witnesses have remained unrebutted. The evidence of eyewitnesses could not be rebutted. Charge Sheet was filed against the driver of the offending vehicle and not against the deceased. It has been correctly held by the learned Tribunal that PW-2 Chandra Kr. Ray was an eyewitness and his evidence could not be rebutted by strenuous cross-examination on behalf of the insurance company. The judgment of the learned Tribunal clearly reflects that tax of Rs.208/- was deducted from the net salary of the deceased. The learned counsel for the insurer, on the other hand has refuted and stated that the deduction of Rs. 208/- was deduction towards professional tax and not income tax.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=eISc8sUCYnQFBVP%2BVeJCODaMIURf80yhIFBJ%2FnwExWYe%2F4g9WIfo8xqQKFzHRq%2F2&caseno=CO/4/2019&cCode=1&cino=GAHC010000682017&state_code=6&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.