Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 70 (MP)

Amita Devi v. Ravindra Singh

2011-01-17

P.K.JAISWAL

body2011
ORDER 1. This appeal is filed by the claimants for enhancement of compensation against an award dated 18.3.2009 passed by learned 19th Additional MACT, Indore in claim case No. 135/09, whereby learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 12,77,000/- as compensation to the appellants. 2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that during service time the deceased had been posted at Border area and at the relevant point of time his earning was Rs. 8,200/- per month. At the time of accident he was posted at Mhow. 3. It is not in dispute that at the time of accident he was not posted at Border or disturbed area, therefore, this Court is of the view that the Tribunal has not committed any legal error in holding that salary of deceased was Rs. 7,700/- per month. In respect of deduction towards personal expenses and living expenses of the deceased, in view of the law laid down by the apex Court in the case of Sarla Venna and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in 2009 ACJ 1298 learned Tribunal has not committed any legal error in holding that where the number of dependent family members is 4 to 6, therefore, rightly assessed the annual dependency of the family of deceased as 3/4th out of total income of deceased. 4. In respect of future prospect, learned counsel for the appellants submits that at the time of accident deceased was working as Naik and he was only 29 years of the age. After recommendation of 6th Pay Commission salary would have at least doubled w.e.f. 1.1.2006. He further submits that the question of future prospects has been considered by the apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and held that about 50% can be added to the actual salary by taking note of the future prospects. Para 43 to 47 are relevant, which reads as under : "43. In this case as noticed above the salary of the deceased at the time of death was Rs. 4,004. By applying the principles enunciated by this Court to the evidence, the High Court concluded that the salary would have at least doubled (Rs. 8008/-) by the time of his retirement and consequently, determined the monthly income as an average of Rs. 4004/and Rs. 8008/- that is Rs. 6006/- per month or Rs. 72072/- per annum. 4,004. By applying the principles enunciated by this Court to the evidence, the High Court concluded that the salary would have at least doubled (Rs. 8008/-) by the time of his retirement and consequently, determined the monthly income as an average of Rs. 4004/and Rs. 8008/- that is Rs. 6006/- per month or Rs. 72072/- per annum. We find that the said conclusion is in conformity with the legal principle that about 50% can be added to the actual salary, by taking note of future prospects. 44. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that when actual figures as to what would be the income in future, are available it is not proper to take a nominal hypothetical increase of only 50% for calculating the income. He submitted that though the deceased was receiving per month at the time of death, as per the certificates is employer (produced before High Court), on the basis of pay revisions and increases, his salary would have been Rs. 32,678/- in the year 2005 and there is no reason why the said amount should not be considered as the income at the time of retirement. It was contended that the income which is to form the basis for calculation should not therefore be the average of Rs. 4004/- and Rs. 8008/-, but the average of Rs. 4004/- and Rs 32,678/-. 45. The assumption of the appellants that the actual future pay revisions should be taken into account for the purpose of calculation the income is not sound. As against the contention of the appellants that if the deceased had been alive, he would have earned the benefit of revised pay scales, it is equally possible that if he had not died in the accident, he might have died on account of ill health or other accident, or lost the employment or met some other calamity or disadvantage. The imponderables in life are too many. Another significant aspect is the non-existence of such evidence at the time of accident. 46. In this case, the accident and death occurred in the year 1988. The award was made by the Tribunal in the year 1993. The High Court decided the appeal in 2007. The imponderables in life are too many. Another significant aspect is the non-existence of such evidence at the time of accident. 46. In this case, the accident and death occurred in the year 1988. The award was made by the Tribunal in the year 1993. The High Court decided the appeal in 2007. The penedency of the claim and appeal for nearly two decades is a fortuitous circumstance will not entitle the appellants to rely upon the two pay revisions which took place in the course of the said two decades. If the claim petition filed in 1988 had been disposed of in the year 1988-89 itself and if the appeal had been decided by the High Court in the year 1988-89, then obviously the compensation would have been decided only with reference to the scale of pay applicable at the time of death and not with reference to any future revision in pay scales. 47. If the contention urged by the claimants is accepted, it would lead to the following situation. The claimants only could rely upon the pay scales in force at the time of the accident, if they are prompt in conducting the case. But if they delay the proceedings upon the revised higher pay scales that may come into effect during such pendency. Surely, promptness cannot be punished in this manner. We therefore reject the contention that the revisions in pay Scale subsequent to the death and before the final hearing should be taken note of for the purpose of determining the income for calculating the compensation.” 5. Consequently, after an addition of 50% actual salary to the actual salary income of the deceased towards future prospects, determined the monthly income @ Rs. 11,550/- per month. After deducting 1/4th towards personal and living expenses the monthly dependency comes to Rs. 8663/- and annual dependency comes to Rs. 1,03,956/- (8663 x 12 = 1,03,956). At the time of death, the deceased was 29 years of the age. By applying the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma (supra) the multiplier of 17 would be applicable. On applying the multiplier of 17 the amount of compensation comes to Rs. 17,67,252/-. On other heads the appellants were awarded a sum of Rs. 29.000/- is just and proper. Thus the total compensation comes to Rs. 17,96,252./-. On applying the multiplier of 17 the amount of compensation comes to Rs. 17,67,252/-. On other heads the appellants were awarded a sum of Rs. 29.000/- is just and proper. Thus the total compensation comes to Rs. 17,96,252./-. The Tribunal has already awarded a sum of Rs. 12,77,000/-, after deducting the same the enhanced amount comes to Rs. 5,19,252/-. The enhanced amount shall also carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of application till its realization. 6. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated here in above, without any order as to costs.