Radhika vs Saleem

A.S. Bopanna, J.—The appellants/claimants are before this Court seeking enhancement of the compensation as against the sum awarded in MVC No. 341/2012.

The fact relating to the accident having occurred on 09.04.2011 and the husband of the first claimant i.e., father of the second claimant, who was the son of the claimants 3 and 4 having died in the said accident is not in dispute. The fact that the deceased was employed in the Hubli Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd., Hubli is also not in dispute, since the said fact has been established by producing the document at Ex. P14. The salary certificate indicated, the salary of the deceased at Rs. 17,430/-. The Tribunal while reckoning the compensation under the head loss of dependency has considered the net salary at Rs. 12,610/- and has accordingly calculated the compensation.

The contention on behalf of the appellants is that the deduction as made and the net salary taken into consideration is not justified. It is also the case of the appellants that the deceased was aged about 40 years and had permanent employment in Hubli Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd., Hubli and as such as held by the Hon''ble Supreme Court, the Tribunal ought to have granted 30% of the said salary towards future prospect for the purpose of calculation of the compensation.

In the light of the said contention, the only aspect that is required to be considered is the actual salary that was being drawn by the deceased, whether such employment was a permanent employment due to which there would have been increase of salary and the nature of deduction that is permissible in law for the purpose of reckoning the salary for consideration. In that regard, we have perused the salary certificate at Ex. P14. Apart from the amount of Rs. 200/- towards professional tax, all other amount which is indicated as deductions in the salary certificate are the benefits derived by the deceased towards provident fund and such other benefits. Hence, the amount towards professional tax alone could have been deducted from the gross salary for the purpose of calculation. If accordingly, a sum of Rs. 200/- is deducted, the salary which should be reckoned for the purpose of calculation would be Rs. 17,230/-. The Tribunal thereafter, while considering the rival contentions has taken note of the evidence tendered through PW2 and also the documents at Exs. P10 to P13 and a finding has been recorded that the deceased was a permanent employee of the Hubli Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd., Hubli. When such finding has been rendered and the age of the deceased was 40 years at the time of death, certainly there was future prospect by way of increments in the salary as also promotion. In that view, the amount at 30% is required to be added to the salary for the purpose of calculation. In the instant case, since we have reckoned the salary at Rs. 17,230/-, 30% to be reckoned would be in a sum of Rs. 5,169/-. Hence, the total salary that should be reckoned for the purpose of calculation would be in a sum of Rs. 22,399/-.

The learned counsel for the respondent submits that the first claimant namely the wife of the deceased has been provided compassionate appointment and from the judgment, it is clear that she in fact was earning a sum of Rs. 10,000/-. Even if the said contention is noticed, it would not make any difference to the case, since the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Vimal Kanwar and Others Vs. Kishore Dan and Others, has held that the amount earned by such compassionate appointment cannot be deducted from the compensation. The further contention that in view of such compassionate appointment the 30% towards future prospect should be derived also cannot be accepted. Due to the death of the husband, she is forced to take employment and she would have to make alternate arrangement for household chores and their 11 year old son would lose her attention which needs to be compensated. Hence, the said contention cannot be accepted by us.

Though, the learned counsel for the appellants contends that the deduction should have been 1/4th, we are satisfied that the deduction of 1/3rd as has been made by the Tribunal is justified in the instant case, since the first claimant in any event is being employed. Therefore, on deduction of 1/3rd the amount that would be reckoned for the purpose of calculation would be in a sum of Rs. 14,932/-. The multiplier as reckoned by the Tribunal is at 15. In that view, the compensation towards loss of dependency would be in a sum of Rs. 26,87,760/-. The amount awarded towards conventional heads at Rs. 55,000/- is maintained. Hence, the appellants-claimants are entitled to the total compensation of Rs. 27,42,760/- with interest at the same rate as awarded by the Tribunal. The apportionment of the amount and the deposit of the amount shall be made in the same proportion as had been made by the Tribunal at the first instance. The enhanced compensation shall be deposited by the Insurance Company within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

In terms of the above, the appeal is allowed in part.