MS. PREMWATI DEVI v. MR. FARMAN

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. Award impugned is the award dated 07.01.2011 vide which compensation in the sum of `16,43,710/- had been awarded in favour of the claimants. This award has been impugned. The claimants are seeking enhancement of compensation on three counts; it is submitted that HRA (House Rent Allowance) had not 2011:DHC:3898 been considered erroneously by the Tribunal; this forms a part of the salary. To support his submission reliance has been placed upon 2011 ACJ 1441 Sunil Sharma & others Vs. Bachitar Singh and others. Second contention is that future prospects have not been considered of the deceased while considering the claim of compensation; thirdly provident fund and interest returned on the provident fund has also not been taken into account to compute the income of the deceased.

2. Record shows that the deceased was working as a Constable with the Ministry of Home Affairs at a monthly of `10,283/-. Para 47 clearly records that the salary slip which had been furnished by the claimants of the deceased, there was no reflection of the HRA and that is why the same was not considered. This has been conceded by learned counsel for the appellants. In this view of the matter, the award not taking into account the HRA for the purpose of computing the salary of the deceased suffers from no infirmity. The second submission of learned counsel for the appellants is that future prospects should have been awarded in favour of the claimants as the deceased was less than 50 years of age; his date of birth was 01.07.1958 evidencing the fact that he was 49 years of age but below 50 years. This fact about the age of the deceased being less than 50 years is borne out from the record. In view of judgment of 2009 (6) Scale 129 Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr 30% future prospects has to be awarded in favour of the claimants of the deceased where the deceased was below 50 years; provided that the deceased has a stable income and there was a possibility of future increments. On this count, the Tribunal in para 46 of the Award had noted that although the salary slip of the appellant had evidenced his salary at `10,283/- per month yet in terms of benefits of the Sixth Pay Commission which would have accrued in favour of the deceased had he been alive, his salary had been fixed at `13,418/- per month; this would be roughly about 30% increase in the actual salary being drawn by the deceased on the date of his death. Thus the benefit of 30% increase as future prospects has been considered and awarded to the claimants while computing the salary of the deceased at `13,418/- per month. This benefit already having been given to the claimants, no interference is called for on this count either.

3. The last argument raised by learned counsel for the appellant is that the interest on the provident fund would have accrued at 12% and benefit of this as additional income should have been awarded to him. The provident fund record of the deceased was not before the Court. In para 47 of the judgment, the Court had noted that there is nothing shown by the appellants which could indicate that any benefits like GPF etc. which was earlier available to the deceased was not now available to him. The finding on this score also calls for no interference.

4. The appeal does not urge any other ground. Being without any merit, it is dismissed.

INDERMEET KAUR, J. AUGUST 03, 2011 a