Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sarita And Anr. vs General Manager, Haryana Roadways And ... on 5 September, 2002
Equivalent citations: II(2003)ACC111, 2003ACJ1937, (2003)133PLR85
Author: Satish Kumar Mittal
Bench: Satish Kumar Mittal
JUDGMENT Satish Kumar Mittal, J.
1. The State of Haryana has filed the present objections against the proposed order dated 28.1.2002 passed by the permanent Lok Adalat of this Court vide which the compensation payable to the claimants (appellants) had been enhanced to the extent of Rs.7,24,560/-. In the said order, the State of Haryana, who is respondent in the present appeal, was given two months time to give concurrence and make payment with liberty to file objections to the proposed order for hearing the appeal on merits according to law. In view of the said order, these objections have been filed by the State of Haryana.
2. This appeal has been filed by the widow and minor daughter of the deceased, who are the claimants, The deceased-Bhagat Singh was 25 years of age at the time of accident. He was employed in Maruti Udyog Limited and was drawing salary of Rs.8629.81 per month at the time of his death, as per salary certificate, Ex.P-2. The salary of the deceased consists of Dearness Allowance, House Rent Allowance, fixed D.A., C.C.A., Uniform Maintenance Reimbursement, Transport Subsidy, Children Education Allowance. B-Shift Allowance and Production Incentive. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gurgaon (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') assessed the monthly salary of the deceased as Rs.3030/- by taking into consideration only the basic pay, D.A. and fixed D.A. The other components, mentioned above, particularly the Production Incentive, which was Rs.4496.81, were not taken into consideration. After deducting l/3rd amount from the said monthly salary, which the deceased might be sending on maintaining himself, the monthly dependency of the claimants was assessed to Rs.2020/-. After applying the multiplier of 16, the total compensation payable to he claimants was assessed to Rs.3,87,840/-, vide award dated 18.3.1999 passed by the Tribunal.
3. Against the said award, the claimants filed the present appeal which was admitted and was sent to the permanent Lok Adalat of this Court for adjudication. The Lok Adalat accepted the contention of the appellants that there was no justification to deduct the Production Incentive (Rs.4496.81), C.C.A. (Rs.100/-) and Children Education Allowance (Rs.100/-). Only House Rent Allowance, Uniform Maintenance Reimbursement, Transport Subsidy and B-shift Allowance would have been deducted from the monthly salary of the deceased. If the amounts under the aforesaid heads are deducted, the net amount of salary would work out to Rs.7726.81 per month (Rs.8629.81/- -Rs.903/- = Rs.7726.81). After applying l/3rd deduction on personal expenses of the deceased, the monthly dependency of the claimants would work out to Rs. 5150/- per month. Keeping in view the age of the deceased i.e., 25 years, the Lok Adalat deemed it appropriate to apply the multiplier of 18 and thus total compensation payable to the claimants was assessed to Rs.11,12,400/-. Since the Tribunal had already awarded Rs.3,87,840/-, therefore, the proposed order was passed for enhancement of compensation payable to the appellants to Rs.7,24,560/-. This proposed order of the Lok Adalat dated 28.1.2002 has been challenged by the respondent-State by filing the objections.
4. We have heard the counsel for both the parties. Shri Sanjay Vashisth, Deputy Advocate General submitted that the proposed order passed by the Lok Adalat proposing enhancement of compensation to Rs.7,24,560/- is excessive. He contended that the monthly receipt on account of Production Incentive by the deceased cannot be taken into consideration because this is not a permanent feature of the salary. It may decrease in future. If that amount is not taken into consideration, then the claimants are not entitled to compensation as proposed by the Lok Adalat. We are unable to accept the contention raised by counsel for the State. The monthly receipt on account of Production Incentive at the time of death of the deceased has to be taken into consideration because that incentive was certainly the income of the deceased. It may be true that Production Incentive may decrease in future, but it may also increase. At the same time, this incentive is a permanent feature of the salary, though it may decrease or increase in a particular month.
5. It has been held by this Court in Employees State Insurance Corporation, Faridabad v. Kelvinator of India Ltd., (1997-2) 116 P.L.R. 495 that Production Incentive is a part of wages. Thus, in our opinion, the Lok Adalat has rightly calculated the monthly dependency of the claimants, after taking into consideration the Production Incentive, Children Education Allowance and C.C.A.
6. The learned counsel for the respondent-State also submitted that the multiplier of 18 is on higher side. We have considered this aspect of the matter also. In our view, the multiplier of 18 is not on higher side, particularly keeping in view of the age of the deceased (25 yeas), age of his father (65 years) and his future prospects in life.
7. In Jyoti Kaul and others v. State of M.P. and another, (2002)6 S.C.C. 306, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that determination of appropriate multiplier in case of death in motor accident depends on the facts and circumstances of the particular case, including the age of the deceased, the age of dependents, not only the existing salary but also any additional sum payable to the deceased depending upon the nature of his job, chances of promotion, life expectancy etc. In that case, the multiplier of 15 was held to be justified in case the age of the deceased was 50 years.
In view of the above, the proposed amount of enhanced compensation to the tune of Rs.7,24,560/- is fully justified.
8. Thus, the objections filed by the respondent-State are dismissed. The proposed order passed by the permanent Lok Adalat is upheld and the appeal is allowed. The compensation payable to the claimants-appellants is enhanced to Rs.7,24,560/- over and above the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The said amount to be paid to the appellants within a period of three months, failing which the appellants will be entitled to claim interest @ 9% from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment of enhanced compensation.