SH. RAM SAKAL MAHTO v. BALRAM SINGH

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. This appeal has impugned the Award dated 27.4.2011 vide which compensation in the sum of Rs.4,00,000/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum had been awarded in favour of the claimant. This amount was exclusive of the interim amount. This Award has been impugned by the claimant. Reasons are two fold; 2011:DHC:4032 firstly, contention is that 50% of the amount should not have been deducted as personal expenses. Secondly the salary of the victim was Rs.6,000/- and it has wrongly been assessed on the basis of minimum wages.

2. The impugned judgment show that both these contentions had been dealt with squarely. The contention of the petitioner before the Tribunal was that the salary of the victim was Rs.6000/but the court had noted that no salary certificate or the appointment letter of the victim had been brought on record; the sole testimony of PW-2 who was a co-employee and the record Ex.PW-2/1 and Ex.PW-2/2 did not show that the victim was earning Rs.6000/-. In this background the salary of the victim had been taken to be the minimum wages applicable on the relevant date; this was in the sum of Rs.3470/-. Award suffers from no infirmity on this court.

3. The deceased was admittedly a bachelor. In view of the ratio of the judgment in Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. reported in 2009 (6) Scale 129 the personal expenses have to be deducted from the income of the deceased at 50%. In view of the ratio of the aforenoted judgment the award on this count also suffers from no infirmity. Appeal is without any merit. Dismissed in limine.

INDERMEET KAUR, J. AUGUST 09, 2011 nandan