AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
G.P. Mittal, J.
C.M. APPL. No. 1148/2012 (for exemption)
Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions.
The application stands disposed of.
C.M. APPL. No. 1149/2012 (for delay in re-filing)
There is delay of 30 days in re-filing the Appeal. For the reasons as stated in the application, the delay is condoned.
The application stands disposed of.
MAC. APP. No. 72/2012
The Appellant seeks enhancement of compensation for the death of Balwant Singh, who died in a motor accident, which took place on 06.02.2009. The Appellants'' grievance is that the transport allowance of Rs. 1,952/- payable to the deceased Balwant Singh was not taken into consideration for computation of loss of dependency. The deceased was employed with Department of Post at IGI Airport. The transport allowance was payable to the employee for his own benefits while attending to his duties. Although, this is not by way of re-imbursement on the basis of actual expenditure. The Tribunal added 30% towards future prospects in view of Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, , deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenditure and applied the multiplier of ''13'' after deducting a sum of Rs. 1,204/- i.e. Rs. 14,448/- towards liability of income tax. The actual income tax on the income of Rs. 2,52,000/- comes to Rs. 17,500/-. Moreover, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 75,000/- towards loss of love and affection. Loss of love and affection cannot be measured in terms of money and a notional sum of Rs. 25,000/- is normally awarded towards loss of love and affection. In the latest judgment of Supreme Court in Sunil Sharma and Others Vs. Bachitar Singh and Others, and in Baby Radhika Gupta and Others Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and Others, the Supreme Court granted only Rs. 25,000/- (in total to all the claimants) under the head of loss of love and affection. Thus the grant of compensation of Rs. 75,000/- under this head was on the higher side. The compensation towards loss of estate was also more than what was suggested in Sarla Verma (supra). The compensation awarded was just and fair. There is no ground to interfere in the impugned judgment.
The Appeal is dismissed in limine.