Asha & Ors. v. Kundan Singh & Ors.

1. This appeal has been filed by the appellants/claimants, challenging the Award dated 25.01.2020 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Impugned Award’) passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (South-East District), Saket Courts, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’) in MACT No.738/18, titled as Asha & Ors. vs. Kundan Singh & Ors.

INCOME OF THE DECEASED:

2. The challenge of the appellants to the Impugned Award is against the learned Tribunal assessing the income of the deceased- Mr. Ravinder Kumar at Rs.16,330/- based on the salary slip of the petitioner for the month of March, 2018 (Ex.PW3/1).

3. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that in the month of March, 2018, the deceased had worked only for 20 days because of which his Basic Pay was reflected as Rs.11,538/-. He submits that the same should not have been taken into account as it was not for the full month. On the other hand, the salary certificate for the month of February, 2018, which was for the full month and reflected the Basic Pay of the deceased as Rs.15,000/-; HRA of Rs.6229/-; Conveyance of Rs.1292/-;and Washing Allowance of Rs.554/-, totaling Rs.23,075/-, should have been considered by the learned Tribunal.

4. The learned counsel for the respondent no.3, on the other hand submits that as the accident had taken place on 02.04.2018, the learned Tribunal has rightly relied upon the salary slip for the month of March, 2018 for determining of the income of the deceased. He submits that it is not evident from the Salary slip if the deceased was a daily wage earner or was employed on a fixed salary.

5. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties.

6. The salary slip for month of March, 2018 clearly indicates that it is only for the period of 20 days. On the other hand, the salary slip for the month of February, 2016 indicates that it is for 26 days. In my view, as the salary slip for the month of February, 2018 is also approximate to the date of accident and is for the full month, the same should have been taken into account by the learned Tribunal for assessing the income of the deceased. The salary slip for February, 2018 indicates that the deceased was being paid a Basic Pay of Rs.15,000/-; HRA of Rs.6229/-; Conveyance of Rs.1292/-; and washing allowance of Rs.554/-, totaling Rs.23,075/-. In Sunil Sharma & Ors. v. Bachitar Singh & Ors., (2011) 11 SCC 425, the Supreme Court has held that allowances which are for the benefit of the entire family must be added to arrive at the ‘income’ of the deceased. It was held as under:-

9. In Raghuvir Singh Matolya v. Hari Singh Malviya [(2009) 15 SCC 363] this Court has observed that dearness allowance and house rent allowance should be included for computation of income of the deceased. xxxxx

11. Based on the aforementioned judgments, we are of the view that deductions made by the Tribunal on account of HRA, CCA and medical allowance are done on an incorrect basis and should have been taken into consideration in calculation of the income of the deceased. Further, deduction towards EPF and GIS should also not have been made in calculating the income of the deceased.” (emphasis supplied)

7. Accordingly, the income of the deceased is assessed as Rs. 23,075/-.

LOSS OF CONSORTIUM

8. The next challenge to the Impugned Award is on the account of the learned Tribunal awarding only Rs.40,000/- as loss of consortium to the claimants. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that as the appellants are the wife, children, and the father of the deceased (who unfortunately expired on 23.01.2020), all the claimants would be entitled to loss of consortium at the rate of Rs.40,000/- each.