DARSHANI DEVI Vs. BALJINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appeal is for enhancement of claim for compensation for death of a male in an accident that took place on 30.04.2008. He was said to be an Assistant Food Food Supply Officer in the Agricultural Department of the Haryana Government and drawing a salary of Rs.23,900/ - per month. The claimants were the widow and two sons. The Tribunal took the income at Rs.15,000/ - per month and assessed a compensation of Rs.9,70,000/ -.

(2.) THE original papers have been destroyed and I do not have the benefit of any documentary evidence to support the correct age of the deceased. However, there was evidence to the effect that he was due to retire within next 14 months. I will, therefore, believe that his age must have been between 55 to 60 years and the appropriate multiplier must be 9 instead of 8 as taken by the Tribunal. There was also evidence before the Tribunal that even apart from his official engagement, he had agricultural lands and the Tribunal took Rs.3,000/ - as the income from the agricultural lands. While assessing the income, the Tribunal took that he would have earned about 50% of his income on his retirement and he would have got Rs.12,000/ - per month as pension and thereby took the income at Rs.15,000/ - per month. Since his retirement was imminent, the Tribunal was justified in taking 50% of the amount as the income which he would have earned. But, however, I will make a modest increase of income from Rs.15,000/ - as taken by the Tribunal to Rs.16,000/ -, considering the fact that he had still 14 months of service at a full salary of Rs.23,900/ - and the assumption that he would have earned only 50% of the income as though he was already retired. There is a certain approximation but since I am examining the case only in appeal, I would not find a need for modification unless there was a very serious approach by the Tribunal. The modest increase from Rs.15,000/ - to Rs.16,000/ - is only to ensure that in the manner of application of multiplier to 9, the shortfall of 50% for 14 months is duly compensated by annualizing the income as provided and adopting a multiplier of 9. I also take note of the fact that he would have paid tax also and a due cut must be therefore provided therefor. I shall rework the compensation under various heads of claims and tabulate them as under: -