Smt. Jav-itri Devi V. Union Of India

CMA/622/2001

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Smt. Jav-itri Devi and another appellant against the Union of India concerning the compensation awarded for the death of Haridesh Babu, an employee of the Airport Authority, who was killed in an accident involving an Army vehicle. The appellants contested the tribunal's decision, which had calculated the deceased's income without including certain allowances. The High Court of Rajasthan referenced several precedents, including the Supreme Court's decision in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi, to determine the appropriate compensation. The court found that the dearness allowance and house rent allowance should be included in the income for compensation purposes and recalculated the compensation accordingly.

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 820429 (HC-RAJASTHAN)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 27-09-2019
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Raghuvir Singh Motolya & Ors. Vs. Hari Singh Malviya & Ors., National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi
• Laws Referred To: National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Indira Srivastava, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ram Prasad Varma & Ors.
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: A K RAJVANSHY
• Keywords: Compensation; Dearness Allowance; House Rent Allowance; Income calculation; Enhanced award
• Section: 598; 763

Judgement Text

"HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 622/2001 Smt. Jav-itri Devi And Anr ----Appellant Versus Union Of India And Ors ----Respondent ; < r* is- ~ f i ~ ~ g o n i For Appellant(s) , * . ~, a . . $ For Respondent@) : Mr. AK Rajvanshy 9 ' % Judqment / Order < -.e\":.\"p + - * >6r , P @ v ; ; , ; > x ? & . ~ . \" ; P E , . *, 27/09/2019 ; ' * * : . ' . \" \" . i , \" y : ; * x ._ 1 Learned counsel for the a'ppellant has preferred this appeal claiming following relief: - sv a, a .+ i ~ . . A '*h .~%& , .sp , G : ; * e x : 7. ? 'It is, therefo;g~jj;\"5;$e~$qcff~~[;~kprayed that this $?$*. \" # ; appeal may kindlG 2G,@!$$:f&Wed 'add the amount of compensation assessed a awarded may kindly be enhanced to the extent of amount claimed with interest at the rate 18% per annum from tQ,,e date of application Ad > 3?p - p . < till realization with ~cbsts.1~$oug66s~$~~ ?%+, ~-<+ , % h : & @ ? y , . : < ; < ? ; &. t. . . . : .-!* $rp(<; * + k g - . k;;$~*'~~:-~,~+;\"< & ‘ 1 ' g f , \" c, i; ' 8 1 The unfortunat6 ac,ccid&t happened. on 25.6.1997 when Haridesh Babu admittedly a permanegt employee of Airport m & + w Authority was going on ~ c o 8 t e r \" ~ o . DIK 9121 towards Ratanada Sojati Gate, at that time was h ~ t by Army Joga Jeep bearing Number 85 B 29430 N and thus, expired. Learned counsel for the appellants makes a limited submission that it has been admitted that the claimant was having monthly income of Rs. 7431/- but the allowance has been declined and thus, income has been taken as Rs. 4,290/-. Learned cou.nse1 for the appellants has drawn attention of this Court to the Division Bench Judgment of this Hon'ble Court I n Raghuvir Singh Motolya & Ors. Vs. Hari Singh Malviya & Ors. Reported in 2010 R x A x R x 27 (SC), relevant paras reads as follows: - \"7. Dearness allowance, in our opinion, should form part of income. House rent allowance is paid for the benefit of the family members and not for-the ;epb$yek-g[q,~e2 .*What would constitute an in corn e, alb e i ~ < i A ~ ~ ~ ;&ff&Fe$t \" fz &Jsi~u~ tion, came up for @ . & A # - * consideration be$@$&this Court in National I'nsOrance Co. Ltd. Vs. h<,, % Indira Srivastava, - % % , & Ors. , (2008) 2 SCC 763 ~h&r$ir?~it &+. , , ... was held: \"1 9. The amounts, T n i s - e therefore, which were required ,torbe paid to the deceased by his employer by way of perks, shouli?, bb included for cok$Jtation of his monthly income as that would h,a$e been added to his monthly income by .way of contribution to the family as contra distinguished to themnes;-which + F ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ : A I 6 . . \" i : d 4 y + were for his benefit. We may, however, hasten~$tq+=pd&b bh:ak fro@ the said amount of i ,iik).. 3 % sx ,a & $ y @ . ? income, the stat~tor~~.a@~y+${a@:itax \" . a , ; d . .B';p,‘;p r i i % x + ~ P ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ p a y h e theruepon must be deducted. Q e ; % ,.*%@ b%v: p ? . Pf- ,g@ ; 6 % & , $ $*pF j,, ~ , f & % $8;. d q ; * . rs.Jy,i?g*;&$ a . ; $ ' & f ; $ 20. The term . . \" i n c o ~ ~ mn~!~:~a,@@qa@,a iAmyar's .+ T - I e + Advanced Law Lexicon has been t ; . ; . - ; : ' ; ; ! $ 'I the value of an$ ;~a$e.c* r . & i $ : ; > ~4..i'e . . : , . a%8&- = *- into money or not, ~btatfg#(~&~m~~cam@any either by a director ?$)!&, $g%t%** or a person who has subs.Ean.tma/*~~dfe~eY& in the company, and any $ $ .& 4.f j j j ! 8s sum paid by such compadp rq~ fiespert . . : @, of g . any obligation, which but fur such payment would fhaXte5 +* * s f be& - r payable .# by the director or other person aforesaid, 06e$?jbih~ . , br,akiSing to a person within the s h l , . .$ < . . . , +^':4. B6* \" Sta te from any pro f e s ~ $ @ ~ k ~ d ~ ~ & ~ 4 ~ ~ $ ~ ( [ ( $ $ \" L ~ >v,4 - % th er than agriculture \" . It has also been ~~&&&b@$-;12~;$,~12$~>&5~?~~~ -5\"pg~ & my,b .\"\" +ps&'-;?. CS? b3v 'In come' s i g n i f i e d t ~ w ~ g G ~ B $ $ e ~ ~ ~ is as large a word as * ; ; ,.I,.;;'*::s\".-i i C. ir can be used to denote a -perso;~~s+:re.;~e~p~ts:\" + \" % j . e2s'>. v d'z,--,e Income is not confined ..+...+.!<,;-.$!I~ - .:'rc:*F:,i>+?,:5,? to receipts form business only- and--means periodical receipts from. one's work, lands, i n ; q g t ~ q $ ? ; ~&G.;;J~,~CY. To the Board af 1 Revenue, income Tax ~ V S . AI. \" Ar. %Rm:\": tdrunachalam Chettiar & Brothers, Ref Vulcun Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Corpon. Of Madras.\" 21. If the dictionary meaning of the word \"income\" is taken to its logical conclusion, it should include those benefits, either in terms of money or otherwise, which are taken into consideration for the purpose of payment of income tax or professional tax although some elements thereof may or may not be taxable or would have been otherwise taxable but for the exemption conferred thereupon under the statute. \" To the same effect is the decision of this Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ram Prasad Varma & Ors., 2009 (1) SCALE 598. 8. We, therefore, are of the opinion that 'Dearness Allowance' and 'House Rent Allowance' payable to the deceased should have been included for determining the income of the deceased and consequently the amount of compensation. whereby the Division Bench of this Court has held that the allowance shall be part of the income. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157 guidelines may be implemented %* %\" hr f-9 P=,-- in the present case-fo? re-,caICulatin@ 'th,e \"award on the basis of monthly income of Rs. 7431/-. * \" Learoed\" counsel for the respondents is not in a position to \" - . y * * refute the position. Further he is also not in a position to refute applicability of Pranay Sethi j$i!rm%~t (supra). >&< : 7 v % *yg% # % , f ' ~ ~ < ~ $p?t % -. ~ I . Z a >.bj ,* < J . : *T &+ >>%-. * ~Yf&$ . - & , ' : , Thus, while allowi~~~~:gh~~~a.p,peaI, $-, a? si > #is- Court directs learned counsel for. both the ' . g.1 /