Meenakshi vs. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. [July 23, 2024]
Citation: 2024 INSC 573; [2024] 7 S.C.R. 1433; Civil Appeal No. 8473 of 2024; Supreme Court of India
Background and Facts
This appeal arose from a motor accident compensation claim filed by Meenakshi, the mother of the deceased Suryakanth, who died in a road accident on August 29, 2013. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) awarded her ₹1,04,01,000 with 6% interest per annum, calculating compensation by including all salary components and applying a 50% increase for future prospects. The High Court, on appeal by the insurance company, reduced the compensation to ₹47,32,035, holding that only the basic salary should be considered for future prospects and that perquisites and allowances like House Rent Allowance (HRA), Flexible Benefit Plan (FBP), and provident fund contributions should be excluded. Meenakshi challenged this reduction before the Supreme Court.
Key Legal Issues
Whether perquisites and allowances should be included in the “basic salary” for calculating compensation and future prospects under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Whether deduction of income tax from gross salary is justified in computing loss of dependency.
Supreme Court’s Analysis and Findings
Inclusion of Allowances and Perquisites:
The Supreme Court held that perquisites and allowances such as HRA, FBP, and provident fund contributions are not static and must be included in the basic salary for the purpose of calculating future prospects and loss of dependency. The Court clarified that the “salary” for compensation purposes should reflect the actual income of the deceased, not just the basic component, and that exclusion of these allowances would artificially deflate the compensation.
Deduction of Income Tax:
The Court upheld the High Court’s deduction of income tax from the gross salary, emphasizing that compensation should be calculated on the net income after tax, as this represents the real financial support available to the dependent.
Quantum of Compensation:
The Supreme Court found that the High Court erred in reducing the compensation by excluding allowances and perquisites from the calculation of future prospects. The Court partly allowed the appeal, restoring a higher compensation amount to the claimant, though not the full sum awarded by the MACT. The final compensation reflected a balanced approach, considering both the inclusion of all salary components and the deduction of income tax.
Conclusion and Significance
The Supreme Court clarified that all components of a salary package, including perquisites and allowances, must be considered for calculating compensation and future prospects in motor accident claims.
The judgment affirms that only net income (after income tax) should be used for computing loss of dependency.
This decision ensures fairer and more realistic compensation for claimants, especially when the deceased was a salaried employee with substantial allowances.
In summary: The Supreme Court restored a higher compensation to Meenakshi, holding that perquisites and allowances must be included in salary for future prospects, and that only net (post-tax) income should be used for calculating loss of dependency in motor accident compensation cases.
RELATED Blog
0 comments