Smt. Kailash Chawla and Others vs Shri Inder Singh and Others

Kailash Gambhir, J.—By way of the present appeal the appellants seek to challenge the impugned award dated 30.7.2007 so as to claim enhancement in the compensation amount over and above the amount of Rs. 5,01,640/- awarded by the Tribunal.

Brief summary of the facts are that on 27.4.2006, the deceased Shri Amar Nath Chawla was travelling in a bus bearing registration No. DL-1PB-2022 and while he was getting down from the said bus, the driver of the bus rashly and negligently drove away the bus, due to which Shri Amar Nath Chawla fell down and was crushed under the rear wheel.

Mr. O.P. Mannie, counsel for the appellant contends that the Tribunal has wrongly deducted Rs. 5,000/- from the gross salary of the deceased. The contention of the counsel for the appellant is that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs. 16,104/- and was paying a sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards provident fund loan instalment. The contention of the counsel for the appellant is that even the dependent members of the deceased would have continued to pay the said amount of instalment as the monthly payment of the same cannot come to an end unless it is fully and finally paid. The deceased was survived by his wife, daughter and two sons. Counsel for the appellant says that the Tribunal has wrongly deducted 1/3rd income of the deceased towards his personal expenses and rather it should have been 1/4th instead of 1/3rd. Counsel for the appellant contends that Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards loss of consortium.

Per contra, Ms. Hetu Arora, counsel for the respondent submits that the award passed by the Tribunal is absolutely just and fair. Counsel further contends that the Tribunal has rightly not taken into consideration the instalment of Rs. 5,000/- which was being paid by the deceased towards his provident fund loan. Counsel for the respondent further contends that no material was placed by the appellant before the Tribunal to show the exact nature of instalment and till what period it was required to be paid by the deceased. Counsel for the respondent further justifies the deduction of 1/3rd income of the deceased towards his personal expenses as made by the Tribunal.

I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

As regards the issue of deduction of PPF loan from the income of the deceased, I feel that the PPF loan which was taken by the deceased cannot be deducted from the net monthly earnings of the deceased. In my view, the deductions made by the Tribunal from the salary of the deceased in this regard, forms part of his salary, since the PPF loan benefits the estate of the deceased. For the purpose of this issue, reference is made to para 8 & 9 of the judgment of the Apex Court reported in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Indira Srivastava and Others, , and the same is reproduced as under:

The term ''income'' has different connotations for different purposes. A court of law, having regard to the change in societal conditions must consider the question not only having regard to pay packet the employee carries home at the end of the month but also other perks which are beneficial to the members of the entire family. Loss caused to the family on a death of a near and dear one can hardly be compensated on monitory terms.

Section 168 of the Act uses the word ''just compensation'' which, in our opinion, should be assigned a broad meaning. We cannot, in determining the issue involved in the matter, lose sight of the fact that the private sector companies in place of introducing a pension scheme takes recourse to payment of contributory Provident Fund, Gratuity and other perks to attract the people who are efficient and hard working. Different offers made to an officer by the employer, same may be either for the benefit of the entire family. If some facilities are being provided whereby the entire family stands to benefit, the same, in our opinion, must be held to be relevant for the purpose of computation of total income on the basis whereof the amount of compensation payable for the death of the kith and kin of the applicants is required to be determined.

In view of the above discussion, I feel that the amount of PPF loan should not have been deducted by the Tribunal.

As regards the issue of deduction, I feel that the Tribunal has erred in deducting only 1/3rd of the income towards the personal expenses of the deceased. The deceased had left behind his widow, daughter and two sons.

I feel that the interest of justice would be best served if deduction to the tune of 1/4th as claimed by the appellant is allowed. The award in this regard is modified to the extent of 1/4th.

As regards the issue of loss of consortium it is borne out from the award that the Tribunal awarded Rs. 40,000/- towards loss of love and affection for the widow wife, daughter and sons of deceased, meaning thereby that Rs. 10,000/- was awarded to the of the deceased towards loss of consortium instead of loss of love and affection. In the facts and circumstances of the case and looking at the age of the wife of the deceased, the total amount of compensation towards loss of consortium and towards loss of love and affection is enhanced from Rs. 40,000/- to Rs. 80,000/-.

In view of the above discussion, respondent No. 3 shall be liable to pay the differential amount of compensation to the appellants with upto date interest @7.5% per annum.

With these directions, the matter is remanded back to the tribunal for carrying out recalculation after taking into consideration the aforesaid modification and for apportionment of the entire compensation amount in favour of the appellants claimants.