G.P.MITTAL, J. - (1.) THESE three Appeals (MAC APP.248/2011, 253/2011 & 250/2011) arise out of a common judgment dated 20.11.2010 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) whereby a compensation of Rs.85,001/ - was awarded in favour of Respondent Pappu, (in MAC APP.250/2011) and a compensation of Rs.16,19,272/ - in favour of legal representatives of deceased Sunil Kumar, Respondents No.1 to 4 (in MAC APP.248/2011 and the Appellants in Cross Appeal No.253/2011).
(2.) THE plea raised by the Appellant U.P. State Road Transport Corporation (UPSRTC) in MAC APP.248/2011 and 250/2011 is that the compensation awarded is excessive and exorbitant. While the plea raised by the legal representatives of the deceased Sunil Kumar in MAC APP.253/2011 is that the compensation awarded is on the lower side as no addition was made towards future prospects. For the sake of convenience, the Appellant U.P. State Road Transport Corporation in MAC APP.248/2011 and MAC APP.250/2011 shall be referred to as the UPSRTC and the Appellants in MAC APP.253/2011 shall be referred to as the Claimants.
(3.) THE following contentions are raised on behalf of the UPSRTC: - (i) It was a head on collusion between the motor car No.DL -1CL -0913 driven by deceased Sunil Kumar, thus, there was contributory negligence on the part of deceased. UPSRTC was not liable to pay the full compensation. (ii) In MAC APP.248/2011, the Claims Tribunal ought to have been deducted income tax payable on the deceased's income before computing the loss of dependency. The Claims Tribunal erred in not deducting any amount of tax. Reliance is placed on Sarla Verma (Smt.) and Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121. In MAC APP.250/2011 a compensation of Rs.85,001/ - awarded in (iii) favour of the First Respondent (the Claimant) was excessive and exorbitant. ;