Delhi High Court
Ms. Premwati Devi & Others vs Mr. Farman & Others on 3 August, 2011
Author: Indermeet Kaur
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Judgment: 03.08.2011
+ MAC APPEAL No. 369/2011
MS. PREMWATI DEVI & OTHERS ...........Appellants
Through: Mr. Rajnish K. Jha, Advocate.
Versus
MR. FARMAN & OTHERS ..........Respondents
Through: Mr. S.L. Gupta and Mr. Ram
Ashray Gupta, Advocate for
respondent No. 3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to
see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Yes
INDERMEET KAUR, J. (Oral)
1. Award impugned is the award dated 07.01.2011 vide which
compensation in the sum of `16,43,710/- had been awarded in
favour of the claimants. This award has been impugned. The
claimants are seeking enhancement of compensation on three
counts; it is submitted that HRA (House Rent Allowance) had not
been considered erroneously by the Tribunal; this forms a part of
the salary. To support his submission reliance has been placed
upon 2011 ACJ 1441 Sunil Sharma & others Vs. Bachitar Singh
and others. Second contention is that future prospects have not
been considered of the deceased while considering the claim of
compensation; thirdly provident fund and interest returned on the
provident fund has also not been taken into account to compute
the income of the deceased.
2. Record shows that the deceased was working as a Constable
with the Ministry of Home Affairs at a monthly of `10,283/-. Para
47 clearly records that the salary slip which had been furnished
by the claimants of the deceased, there was no reflection of the
HRA and that is why the same was not considered. This has been
conceded by learned counsel for the appellants. In this view of the
matter, the award not taking into account the HRA for the
purpose of computing the salary of the deceased suffers from no
infirmity. The second submission of learned counsel for the
appellants is that future prospects should have been awarded in
favour of the claimants as the deceased was less than 50 years of
age; his date of birth was 01.07.1958 evidencing the fact that he
was 49 years of age but below 50 years. This fact about the age of
the deceased being less than 50 years is borne out from the
record. In view of judgment of 2009 (6) Scale 129 Sarla Verma &
Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr 30% future prospects
has to be awarded in favour of the claimants of the deceased
where the deceased was below 50 years; provided that the
deceased has a stable income and there was a possibility of future
increments. On this count, the Tribunal in para 46 of the Award
had noted that although the salary slip of the appellant had
evidenced his salary at `10,283/- per month yet in terms of
benefits of the Sixth Pay Commission which would have accrued in
favour of the deceased had he been alive, his salary had been
fixed at `13,418/- per month; this would be roughly about 30%
increase in the actual salary being drawn by the deceased on the
date of his death. Thus the benefit of 30% increase as future
prospects has been considered and awarded to the claimants
while computing the salary of the deceased at `13,418/- per
month. This benefit already having been given to the claimants, no
interference is called for on this count either.
3. The last argument raised by learned counsel for the
appellant is that the interest on the provident fund would have
accrued at 12% and benefit of this as additional income should
have been awarded to him. The provident fund record of the
deceased was not before the Court. In para 47 of the judgment,
the Court had noted that there is nothing shown by the appellants
which could indicate that any benefits like GPF etc. which was
earlier available to the deceased was not now available to him.
The finding on this score also calls for no interference.
4. The appeal does not urge any other ground. Being without
any merit, it is dismissed.
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
AUGUST 03, 2011
a
