IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of considering all perks and benefits that are beneficial to the family in determining the income of the deceased in motor accidents claims cases.

JUDGMENT

Navin Chawla, J. (Oral)

1. This appeal has been filed by the appellants/claimants, challenging the Award dated 25.01.2020 (hereinafter referred to as the `Impugned Award') passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (South-East District), Saket Courts, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as `Tribunal') in MACT No.738/18, titled as Asha & Ors. vs. Kundan Singh & Ors..

INCOME OF THE DECEASED:

2. The challenge of the appellants to the Impugned Award is against the learned Tribunal assessing the income of the deceased- Mr. Ravinder Kumar at Rs.16,330/- based on the salary slip of the petitioner for the month of March, 2018 (Ex.PW3/1).

3. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that in the month of March, 2018, the deceased had worked only for 20 days because of which his Basic Pay was reflected as Rs.11,538/-. He submits that the same should not have been taken into account as it was not for the full month. On the other hand, the salary certificate for the month of February, 2018, which was for the full month and reflected the Basic Pay of the deceased as Rs.15,000/-; HRA of Rs.6229/-; Conveyance of Rs.1292/-; and Washing Allowance of Rs.554/-, totaling Rs.23,075/-, should have been considered by the learned Tribunal.

4. The learned counsel for the respondent no.3, on the other hand submits that as the accident had taken place on 02.04.2018, the learned Tribunal has rightly relied upon the salary slip for the month of March, 2018 for determining of the income of the deceased. He submits that it is not evident from the Salary slip if the deceased was a daily wage earner or was employed on a fixed salary.

5. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties.

6. The salary slip for month of March, 2018 clearly indicates that it is only for the period of 20 days. On the other hand, the salary slip for the month of February, 2016 indicates that it is for 26 days. In my view, as the salary slip for the month of February, 2018 is also approximate to the date of accident and is for the full month, the same should have been taken into account by the learned Tribunal for assessing the income of the deceased. The salary slip for February, 2018 indicates that the deceased was being paid a Basic Pay of Rs.15,000/-; HRA of Rs.6229/-; Conveyance of Rs.1292/-; and washing allowance of Rs.554/-, totaling Rs.23,075/-. In Sunil Sharma & Ors. v. Bachitar Singh & Ors., (2011)11 SCC 425, the Supreme Court has held that allowances which are for the benefit of the entire family must be added to arrive at the `income' of the deceased. It was held as under:

"6. In National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Indira Srivastava, [(2008)2 SCC] S.B. Sinha, J. has observed that: (SCC p. 767, para 9)

"9. 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 monetary terms."

7. His Lordship also stated that if some facilities were being provided whereby the entire family stood to benefit, the same must be held to be relevant for the purpose of computation of total income on the basis of which the amount of compensation payable for the death of the kith and kin of the applicants was required to be determined. This Court held that: (Indira Srivastava case [(2008)2 SCC 763], SCC p. 768, para 12)

"12. ...superannuation benefits, contributions towards gratuity, insurance of medical policy for self and family and education scholarship were beneficial to the members of the family."

8. This Court clarified that by opining that: (Indira Srivastava case [(2008)2 SCC 763], SCC p. 771, para 17)

" `just compensation' must be determined having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case