SARITA Vs. GENERAL MANAGER, HARYANA ROADWAYS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE State of Haryana has filed the present objections against the proposed order dated 28.1.2002 passed by the permanent Lok Adalat of this Court vide which the compensation payable to the claimants (appellants) had been enhanced to the extent of Rs.7,24,560/-. In the said order, the State of Haryana, who is respondent in the present appeal, was given two months time to give concurrence and make payment with liberty to file objections to the proposed order for hearing the appeal on merits according to law. In view of the said order, these objections have been filed by the State of Haryana.

(2.) THIS appeal has been filed by the widow and minor daughter of the deceased, who are the claimants, The deceased-Bhagat Singh was 25 years of age at the time of accident. He was employed in Maruti Udyog Limited and was drawing salary of Rs.8629.81 per month at the time of his death, as per salary certificate, Ex.P-2. The salary of the deceased consists of Dearness Allowance, House Rent Allowance, fixed D.A., C.C.A., Uniform Maintenance Reimbursement, Transport Subsidy, Children Education Allowance. B-Shift Allowance and Production Incentive. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gurgaon (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') assessed the monthly salary of the deceased as Rs.3030/- by taking into consideration only the basic pay, D.A. and fixed D.A. The other components, mentioned above, particularly the Production Incentive, which was Rs.4496.81, were not taken into consideration. After deducting l/3rd amount from the said monthly salary, which the deceased might be sending on maintaining himself, the monthly dependency of the claimants was assessed to Rs.2020/-. After applying the multiplier of 16, the total compensation payable to he claimants was assessed to Rs.3,87,840/-, vide award dated 18.3.1999 passed by the Tribunal.

(3.) WE have heard the counsel for both the parties. Shri Sanjay Vashisth, Deputy Advocate General submitted that the proposed order passed by the Lok Adalat proposing enhancement of compensation to Rs.7,24,560/- is excessive. He contended that the monthly receipt on account of Production Incentive by the deceased cannot be taken into consideration because this is not a permanent feature of the salary. It may decrease in future. If that amount is not taken into consideration, then the claimants are not entitled to compensation as proposed by the Lok Adalat. We are unable to accept the contention raised by counsel for the State. The monthly receipt on account of Production Incentive at the time of death of the deceased has to be taken into consideration because that incentive was certainly the income of the deceased. It may be true that Production Incentive may decrease in future, but it may also increase. At the same time, this incentive is a permanent feature of the salary, though it may decrease or increase in a particular month.