Delhi High Court
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Usha Sharma & Ors. on 8 April, 2009
Author: J.R. Midha
19
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ MAC.APP.381/2007
Date of Decision: 8th April, 2009
%
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. ..... Appellant
Through : Mr. R.K. Tripathi, Adv.
versus
USHA SHARMA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through : Mr. Navneet Goyal, Adv. for
R-1 to 4.
CORAM :-
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA
1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may
be allowed to see the Judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be
reported in the Digest?
JUDGMENT (Oral)
1. The appellant has challenged the award of the learned
Tribunal whereby compensation of Rs.1,28,43,400/- has been
awarded to claimants/respondents No.1 to 4.
2. The accident dated 15th June, 2002 resulted in the
death of Rajneesh Bhanot. The deceased was aged 29 years
at the time of the accident and was survived by his widow,
minor daughter and parents who filed the claim petition
before the learned Tribunal.
3. The deceased was working as Project Manager Grade IV
with Infosys Technologies Ltd. drawing a gross salary of
Rs.53,410/- per month. The annual remuneration of the
deceased at the time of the accident was Rs.6,40,920/-.
Considering the future prospects, the learned Tribunal took
the income of the deceased as Rs.12,81,840/-. 1/3rd was
deducted towards personal expenses and the loss of
dependency was computed at Rs.8,54,560/-. The learned
Tribunal applied the multiplier of 15 to compute the
compensation at Rs.1,28,18,400/-. Rs.5,000/- was awarded
towards funeral charges and Rs.20,000/- towards loss of
consortium, love and affection.
4. The only ground raised before this Court is that there is
apparent contradiction of the documents filed by
claimants/respondents No.1 to 4 regarding the proof of
income. The learned counsel points out that Ex.P-13 is the
certificate issued by the employer, M/s Infosys Technologies
Ltd. in which it is stated that the gross monthly income of the
deceased was Rs.53,410/- whereas in Ex.P-18/P-19 which is
Form-16 filed by the employer with the Income Tax
Department, the gross salary has been mentioned as
Rs.5,41,384/- and in Ex.P-16, the gross salary of the
deceased has been mentioned as Rs.45,679/-.
5. I have examined the said documents. Along with Ex.P-
13, the employer has also given the detailed computation of
the gross salary in the annexure. The break-up of
Rs.53,410/- per month is as under:-
"Particulars Amount
(In Rs. Per Month)
1) Monthly Components
Basic Salary 13110/-
Dearness Allowance 1100/-
Basket of Allowances 20354/-
Special Allowance 6141/-
Take Home Salary 40705/-
2) Quarterly Components
Company Performance-linked 5342/-
Incentive
3) Annual Components
Bonus 2842/-
4) Retiral Benefits
Provident Fund Contribution 1705/-
Gratuity 684/-
Superannuation 2132/-
5) Gross Salary per month 53410/-"
6. There is no inconsistency between Ex.P-13, Ex.P-18/P-
19 and Ex.P-16. However, since the Ex.P-18/P-19 and Ex.P-
16 does not contain all the heads as given in Ex.P-13, the
total amount mentioned in Ex.P-16 and Ex.P-18/P-19 is lower
than the total amount mentioned in Ex.P-13. Some of the
heads such as provident fund contribution of Rs.1,705/-,
gratuity of Rs.684/-, company performance linked incentive
of Rs.5,342/- have not been included in Ex.P-16 and Ex.P-18
whereas the other heads in all the documents are
substantially the same and, therefore, no adverse inference
can be drawn in the present case.
8. The record of the learned Tribunal shows that the
appellant did not cross-examine the witnesses PW1 to PW3
who proved the income of the deceased. As such, the
testimony of the witnesses of the claimants remained
unrebutted before the learned Tribunal.
9. There is no infirmity in the computation of
compensation by the learned Tribunal.
10. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
CM No.8547/2007
The application is dismissed. The ex-parte interim stay
stands vacated.
Cross-Objections No.16037/2008
1. Since the appeal has been dismissed, the learned
counsel for claimants/respondents No.1 to 4 does not press
the cross-objections.
2. The cross-objections are dismissed as not pressed.
J.R. MIDHA, J
APRIL 08, 2009
aj
