Back
2022 Supreme(SC) 1884
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S. Ravindra Bhat, Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, JJ.
Shyno M. Aykara – Appellant
Versus
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 8462 of 2022 (@ SLP(Civil) No. 15192/2020)
Decided On : 15-11-2022
M.F.Philip, Advocate, M.Joseph Saleem, Advocate, Purnima Krishna, Advocate, Amit Kumar Singh, Advocate, K.Enatoli Sema, Advocate, Chubalemla Chang, Advocate, Prang Newmai, Advocate
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the revised salary and pay benefits of a deceased employee, as per the relevant statutory regulations, should be taken into consideration for calculating compensation in a motor vehicle accident case.
Headnote:
Compensation - Motor Vehicle Accident - General Insurance (Rationalisation of Pay Scales and other Conditions of Service of Development Staff) Second Amendment Scheme, 2016 - Para 7B
Fact of the Case:
The appellant-wife sought enhanced compensation for the death of her husband in a motor vehicle accident, based on the revised salary and pay benefits accruing to her deceased husband, which were not considered in the impugned judgment passed by the High Court of Kerala.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the deceased was entitled to a pay revision at least three months before the date of his death, as per the General Insurance (Rationalisation of Pay Scales and other Conditions of Service of Development Staff) Second Amendment Scheme, 2016. The court held that the appellant-wife and other family members were entitled to the differential of Rs.9,336.00 towards compensation, in addition to the amount granted in the impugned judgment. The court also directed the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal to recalculate the correct amount of compensation and draw up a decree in terms of the modification indicated by the judgment.
Issues: The main issue was whether the revised salary and pay benefits of the deceased should be taken into consideration for calculating the compensation in a motor vehicle accident case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the General Insurance (Rationalisation of Pay Scales and other Conditions of Service of Development Staff) Second Amendment Scheme, 2016, specifically Para 7B, to determine that the deceased was entitled to a substantial pay increase before his death, and that the appellant-wife and other family members were entitled to enhanced compensation based on the revised salary.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and it was directed that the compensation calculable in the case shall be enhanced by Rs.9,336.00 per month, and the appellants shall be entitled to future prospects worked out at 15% on the said amount. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal was directed to recalculate the correct amount of compensation and draw up a decree in terms of the modification indicated by the judgment.
ORDER
1. Leave granted. With counsel's consent, the appeal was heard finally.
2. The grievance of the appellant-wife of the deceased-K.C. Thomas is that the revised salary and pay benefits accruing to her deceased husband, who expired as a consequence of the accident, was not taken into consideration. Her plea was turn down by the impugned judgment passed by the High Court of Kerala.
3. The facts need not be recounted in detail; appellant's husband late K.C. Thomas died as a result of motor vehicle accident on 17/11/2012. He was employed as a Development Officer in United India Insurance Company with a monthly salary of Rs.60,000.00.
4. Aggrieved, the claimants approached the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pala('MACT') seeking compensation. MACT applied a multiplier of 11 and awarded compensation of Rs.53,20,660.00 by an Order dtd. 27/9/2014.
5. The appellant-wife had contended that the pay and other emoluments of her late husband were revised w.e.f. 1/8/2012, by an Order dtd. 23/1/2016. She, therefore, urged that the higher pay accruing to her deceased husband-who was in employment as on 1/8/2012, should be the basis for reckoning compensation. This plea was however, declined by the High Court, before whom this argument was made for the first time.
6. The Gazette Notification dtd. 23/1/2016 which increased the salary of employees of United India Insurance Company has been placed on record. Paras 7A, 7B and 7C of the pay increase [which was through the statutory regulations, i.e. General Insurance (Rationalisation of Pay Scales and other Conditions of Service of Development Staff) Second Amendment Scheme, 2016 ('the Scheme')], is relevant; especially so, para 7B, which reads as follows :
"7B. Equitable relief. Notwithstanding anything contained in paragraph 7A, the Development Officer who was in service at any time during the period from the 1st day of August, 2012 to the 31st day of March, 2013 shall be paid equitable relief for the period of such service. Explanation: For the purposes of this paragraph the term "equitable relief" means the difference between the aggregate of gross emoluments and allowance for technical qualifications computed under Schedule I and Schedule H, respectively, with consequent adjustment of ex-gratia payment, Provident Fund, Pension, Gratuity and Encashment of Earned Leave, as the case may be."
7. In terms of the substantive provisions of the said amending regulations, the deceased, who was working as Development Officer, became entitled to a substantial pay increase. As against the basic salary of Rs.29,395.00 enjoyed by him (as on 31/7/2012), the pay was increased to Rs.56,060.00. The increase worked out to Rs.9336.00, in terms of the revised pay slip issued by United India Insurance Company. As a consequence, the total emoluments (after relevant deduction) of the deceased w.e.f. 1/8/2012 were Rs.62,460.00 (Rs.53,124.00 + Rs.9,336.00).
8. Having considered the effect of the Schemewhich is undeniably statutory, what emerges is that the deceased was entitled to a pay revision atleast three months before the date of his death. This is evident from the revised arrears calculation sheet for the period August, 2012 to January, 2016 issued by the United India Insurance Company in respect of the deceased. Therefore, in real terms, the deceased income had increased by Rs.9,336.00. Even the arrears for the three months period that he actually worked when he was alive apparently was disbursed to his dependants. In these circumstances, the court is of the opinion that the approach adopted by the impugned judgment cannot be sustained. The appellant-wife and other family members are clearly entitled to the differential of Rs.9,336.00 towards compensation, in addition to Rs.53,124.00 granted to them in the impugned judgment. This shall be reflected in the computation to be worked out by the MACT.
9. The MACT as well as the High Court in this Court's opinion, also fell into error in denying the appellants the en
