IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

M.A No. 593 of 2017

------

1. Ganesh Yadav

2. Lalmuni Devi

…. …. Appellant(s).

Versus

1. M/s Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.

2. Sita Pati Devi

…. …. Respondent(s)

------

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN.

------

For the Appellant(S) : Mr. Saibal Kumar Laiyak Advocate

For the Respondents-I.C : Mr. G.C. Jha, Advocate

08/12.04.2022

Heard the counsel for the parties. I have gone through the lower court

record.

2.

By filing this appeal, the claimants are praying to enhance the amount of

compensation awarded by the Tribunal in Title (M.V) Suit No.159 of 2014 by

District Judge-XV-cum-MACT, Dhanbad.

3.

Counsel for the appellants in support of this appeal submits that the

deceased was a Medical Representative and as per Exhibit-2 which is the salary

slip of the Month of June, 2012, the salary of the deceased is Rs.27,948/- but

Tribunal has considered the income of the deceased as Rs.10,208/- per month for

the purpose of computing the compensation. He submits that the basis of such

calculation is erroneous and beyond the record. He submits that as per the

judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of National Insurance

Company Limited Vrs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, the

salary should be actual salary less the amount paid as income tax. As per him

since there is documentary evidence which is Exhibit-2 was on record, the

Tribunal could not have assessed the income to be Rs.10,208/-. He further submits

that the claimants are entitled for compensation under head of “Future Prospects”,

which has not been granted by the Tribunal while finally assessing the

compensation. Lastly, he submits that under “Conventional Head” only

Rs.15,000/- has been awarded in place of Rs.70,000/-, as directed by the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited (Supra).

Only these aforesaid grounds are addressed by the counsel for the appellants.

4.

Counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company opposes the prayer of the

appellants and submits that the Tribunal has rightly assessed the monthly income

of the deceased as Rs.10,208/-.

-2-

He submits that if Exhibit-2 is seen carefully, it will be clear that for the month of

June, 2012, the entry under basic salary has been made twice i.e. Rs.2562/- and

Rs.7083/-. He further submits that the H.R.A has also been recorded twice i.e

Rs.768/- and Rs.2,125/-. He further submits that conveyance field force and travel

field force have been recorded twice. He further submits that internet charges,

postage and courier and stationary are normally provided by way of

reimbursement and that being so, the said cannot be added in salary. He further

submits that the court below has correctly considered the P.F Contribution made

by the deceased, and has not considered the same while calculating the monthly

income.

5.

Considering the nature of dispute in this appeal, which is for the purpose

of enhancement of the compensation amount, nature of arguments and the

grounds taken during arguments, this Court feels that it is not necessary to go into

details of the manner of accident, dependency, application of multiplier. The fact

that the offending vehicle was insured with respondent-Oriental Insurance

Company Ltd. has also admitted. It is also admitted that at the time of accident

the offending vehicle was duly insured and there was no violation of the terms

and conditions of the policy. That being so only issue which has to be decided in

this appeal is quantum of compensation. Exhibit -2 is the pay slip of the deceased

for the month of June, 2012. When I go through the pay scale, I find that total

earning of the deceased for that month is shown as Rs.27,948/- and deduction for

the month is shown as Rs.1,429/-. The deductions are on account of P.F

contribution and ESI contribution. These contributions are part of the sala