AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Suresh Kait, J.—Instant appeal has been preferred against the impugned award dated 06.03.2012 passed by the ld. Tribunal whereby compensation for a sum of Rs. 28,05,816/- has been granted by the ld. Tribunal with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the Notice Under Order 21 Rule 1 is given by the Insurance Company. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has argued the instant appeal on the two grounds, firstly, the date of birth of the deceased was 15.01.1974 and he met with an accident on 27.06.2009. Therefore, on the date of the accident, he was 35 years 5 months and 12 days of age. Accordingly, keeping in view the age of the deceased, the ld. Tribunal has wrongly applied multiplier of 16. On this issue reliance has been placed on Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, .
Ld. Counsel for the appellant further submits that in the case of Sarla Verma (Supra) for the age between 31 to 35, multiplier of 16 is applied and for the age between 36 to 40, multiplier of 15 is applied.
On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the respondents/claimants submits that deceased was between the age of 35 to 36 years. Therefore, multiplier 15 will be applicable only if the deceased had attained the age of 36 years, but certainly not on less than 36 years.
In view of the dictum of Sarla Verma (Supra), I do not find any discrepancy on the application of multiplier of 16 by the ld. Tribunal.
As the issue of salary is concerned, ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that ld. Tribunal has not deducted Rs. 732/- as TA and Rs. 50/- as conveyance allowance. Thus, the ld. Counsel has argued that Rs. 782/- had to be deducted from the salary and thereafter the compensation should have been awarded.
On this issue, ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents / claimants submits that the gross salary has been taken into consideration, therefore, ld. Tribunal has not rightly deducted Rs. 782/- towards TA and conveyance allowance. He has relied upon a case of Shyamwati Sharma and Others Vs. Karam Singh and Others, and Vimal Kanwar and Others Vs. Kishore Dan and Others, .
On going through the judgments cited by the counsel for the respondents / claimants, I am of the opinion that the whole discussion in both the judgments are on the deductions towards GPF, Life Insurance Premium, Repayment of Loan, Share etc. and the income tax / surcharge, however, there is no discussion on the amount of TA or conveyance allowance. The aforementioned allowances are earned by the employee from the employer if he remained in service, otherwise not applicable to him. Therefore, I find force in the submission of ld. Counsel for the appellant. Accordingly, Rs. 782/- is deducted from the salary and accordingly the compensation is granted as under: -
Modified/reduced compensation comes to Rs. 1,68,916/- (28,05,816-26,36,900). 8. I note, pursuant to order dated 15.05.2012, appellant has deposited the award amount with UCO Bank, Delhi High Court Branch, New Delhi. The Branch Manager, UCO Bank, Delhi High Court Branch is directed to release the compensation amount in favour of the respondents / claimants after deducting the amount mentioned above with proportionate interest thereto.
Consequently, statutory amount be released in favour of the appellant/Insurance Company. Appeal stands disposed of on the above terms.
CM. NO. 8861/2012
With the disposal of the appeal itself, this application has become infructuous. The same is accordingly disposed of.