C. JEYARANI Vs. C. THANDABALAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN respect of death of an advocate clerk by name Chockalingam, the wife aged 34, sons aged 9 and 14, mother aged 68 as legal representatives have filed a claim petition claiming a sum of Rs.30,00,000.00 as compensation. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.2,55,000.00 as compensation and the details are furnished hereunder;- <FRM>JUDGEMENT_2940_TLMAD0_2012htmlh10.htm</FRM>

(2.) ON the side of the claimants, Ex.P8 document has been filed. It is the certificate issued by the Advocate Kasamuthu certifying that the Advocate Clerk was earning a sum of Rs.4,500.00 as monthly salary. Apart from that his income would be roughly Rs.10,000.00 per month from other sources including payment by the clients. This certificate has been disbelieved by the Tribunal on the ground that as per the registration certificate, the clerk has registered himself under the Advocate by name R.Thiyagarajan. As Ex.P8 has been issued by some other advocate, the Tribunal was not inclined to believe it. This part of the reasoning cannot be accepted. To begin with a clerk he might have registered himself under a particular advocate. Later on, he may shift himself from the office of that advocate and he might have been working as advocate clerk under some other counsel. It does not mean that he did not work under the advocate Kasamuthu. Even if the Tribunal entertains a doubt regarding Ex.P8, it would have got it cleared by raising relevant questions by invoking power under Section 165 of Evidence Act and that has not been done. Therefore, the finding of the Tribunal that Ex.P8 is unworthy of acceptance cannot be accepted.

(3.) EXPLODING dockets everywhere remain the main challenge for judiciary. With increase in population and increase in awareness, litigations are multiplying. With globalisation, nature and varieties of litigations are also burgeoning. Then, naturally the Advocate clerks will be utilised in a better manner and therefore, the income of the advocate clerks will correspondingly increase. Even otherwise, the future prospects/ increase in the income to categories other than the Government Servants category is also recognised in the decision reported in 2012 ACJ 1428 (Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Co. Ltd.). Therefore, relying upon that decision, the future prospective increase in the income of the Advocate clerk are also taken into consideration.