iy,,^s, ^t 'l "1». HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.A.No. 1246 of 2005 Hitendri Mandavi & others Vs. Sonu Ram Nag & another AWARD For consideration ,s~-12.2011 Hon'ble Shri Raieev Gupta. J ^ ^r^^^-^ Chief Jusdce .12.2011 Sd/- . - N.K.Agrawal Judge Postfor: ^ .12.2011 Sd/- Judge ^ .12.2011 y^ if IIL.-..L "]-• ^^i^^^, ';^^l^itwri8> sl| "'aBSBXi^ .1"' ^a'-isgii'3'2 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.A. No. 1246 of 2005 APPELLANTS CLAIMANTS 1. Hitendri Mandavi, widow of GR Mandavi, aged about 25 years, 2. Om Sailendra S/o GR Mandavi, aged about 01 year (minor), 3. Mangalu Ram, S/o Durjan, aged about 60 years, 4. Dularin Bai, wife of Mangalu Ram, aged about 55 years, All R/o Village Mahurband Para, Kanker, Distt. Kanker, CG. The appellant No. 2 is minor through its natural guardian mother Smt. Hitendri Mandavi VERSUS 1. Sonu Ram Nag S/o Chhedilal Nag, aged about 27 years, R/o Bazarpara, Kondagaon, Distt. Bastar (CG) (Driver) 2. State of Chhattisgarh, through Collector, Bastar, Distt. Bastar (CG). (Owner) (APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT) (DB: Hon'ble Mr. Raieev Gupta, CJ & Hon'ble Mr. N.K. Agarwal, J.) Present : Shri Vishnu Kosta, Advocate for appellants. Shri Kishore Bhaduri, Addl. AdvocateGeneral for State/ respondent No.2. AWARD (Delivered on % /12/2011) Per : N.K. Aaarwal, J. RESPONDENTS 1. This is claimants' appeal seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the IVth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (FTC), Kanker, (for short 'the Tribunal') in claim case No. 22/04 vide award dated 06.07.2005. •eou9J8jja}U! Aue jo^ iieoiou seop pue uo^esuadaioo jedojd pue }sn[ si |eunqui 94) Aq pepjeme uoi)ESU8dLuoo eqt 'eseo 84t P seoueiSLunojio pue spej eqi ui 'pe^Luqns pue peu6ndLU! PJBMB eq) peijoddns 'g -ON tuepuods9j/e)e)s JOJ 6uue8dde lesunoo peujeei 'unpeqg ajo^si^ uqs 'pueq jeqto 8L|) UQ •p93UBL|U3 A|qe)ins sq Q) seAjessp qoiqM uoitesueduoo ^o (unoLue MO| Buipjeme ui AqejsL)} pue 'qiuoLU jed -/OSS8 'sy se iABpue|/\| uiey qseueo peseeoep p AJB|BS ^eu uoiiejepisuoo o}ui Bu^e^ Aq uoiiesusdiuoo ^o lunotue eqt 6u!)e|no|eo ui jojje ui u9||ej SBL) )nq 'si. io jaiiditinui paiidde A|}46u seq |eunqui aL|i q6noL|)|e (iiuqns p|noM stue||9dde eq} jo^ |esunoo peujeei 'e)so»nuqsiA UL|S •lueujAed |enpe s}i ||ii uoiieoiidde ^o 3)ep eqi LUOJJ Lunuue jed tueojed g @ isejeiui q)iM 6uo|B stueLuieio 3L|( 0} uoitesuediuoo p )unoiue peuo!)U8Luejo^E pepjeme pue pessesse ^uspiooe pjBS eq} ui peuie^sns saunfui p tunoooe uo peip lAepuei^ Luey Liseueo 'Z^I.-V-ZO-HI/^I 'ON ; uoiiejtsiSej Guueeq desp epiqeA Buipueyo p j9AUp p BuiAUp iu&6i|69u pue qsej Q) enp pojjnooo peq luepiooe 941 : p|eq 'po| eouspiAe eq} p Auitmos esojo e uo 'ieunqui eqi 'luaLuAed len^oe S)i ||i} uoiieoiidde ^0 3)ep 94} LUOJJ Lunuue jed }uaoj9d g @ }S8je)U! q}iM 6uo|B -/OOO'Sfr'OI. 'sy P ujns |e}0) e pspJBMB leunqui eq) 'EOOZ'Ol'ZO uo lueppoe JO)OLU 94) ui peseeoep p qieap 94} jo^ (,pv AI/M, fJoqs jo^) 9861. 'toy seioiqeA -ioio|/\| eq) 10 991. uoipeg jepun uoiieoiidde 6ui|!j Aq jAepue|/\| iuey qseueo pesesosp p P|IL|O JOUILU euo pue MOpiM 'stuejed eieunyojun Aq poLUiep -/QOO'Z9'6Z 'sy ^o uoitesuedujoo )su!e6e sy \ 6. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the award impugned including records ofthe Tribunal. 7. The tast pay certificate of deceased Ganesh Ram Mandavi, Deputy Collector (Ex.P.8) filed and proved by the appellants would reveal: deceased Ganesh Ram Mandavi was getting Rs.4,190/- as dearness allowance besides substantive pay of Rs.8,550/- per month as gross regularly salary. The pay certificate further reveals; the deceased was residing in the Government accommodation and the amount of Rs.100/- drawn as SA in the month of October, 2003 was also not a part of regular salary. Therefore, the gross salary of deceased would be Rs.12,740/- per month and Rs.1,52,880/- per annum. 8. The Tribunal assessed the amount of compensation by taking the net salary of deceased into consideration for computing the amount of compensation. 9 The law is well settled, the amount of DA is part of regular salary and is not deductible from the salary of deceased for the purpose of computation of compensation. The only amount, whichshould be deducted from the income of deceased is statutory amount of tax payable upon the income ofdeceased. 10. The Supreme Court in case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Indira Srivastava and others, reported in 2008 (2) SCC-763 has held in para 19 of its judgment as under: "19. The amounts, therefore, which were required to be paid to the deceased by his employer by way of perks, should be included for computation of his monthly income as that would have been added to his monthly income by •leunqui 941 Aq pepjBme se -/000'9t''0l'sa ^o peeisui uoiiesusdujoo se -/000'91.'9l'sy 1° Luns \ew -loj p8|l!tus eje SIUGLUIBIO eq^ snqi pue (eieise ^o sso| pue ainiyosuoo p sso| 'sesusdxe |Bjeuni to lunoooe uo qoea -/0009'sy) -/000'91'sy JO^ p3|WU9 jsqyn^ eje siue||3dde/siueuu!e|0 eqi 'fri. •Aouepusdap i0 sso| p lunoooe uo uoiiesuedLuoo se -/OOO'00'Sl.'sy jo^ p9|t!iua auiooeq p|nom siuBLUieio/siueiiedde 9L|i 'ieunqui eqi Aq p8i|dde se 'si. jo jsiidiiinai SLI} L|tiM Aouepusdep |enuue .siueLuiep ^o tunoLue SAoqe eL|i BuiAiditiniu Ag '-/OOO'OO' I'sa 0} ino S)|JOM Aouspusdep AjjesA .SIUBLUIEIO 'pssesosp sq} p sesuedxe leuosjed spjEMoi -/OOO'OS'l.'sy ^o p,e/|. lensn 6ui.ionp9p jeyy '£1- •uoitBSuedLuoop uoiieinduioo jo esodjnd eqi JQJ [QOO'OO' 1= (xe» p lunouie) 098Z-088'Z9'I.] Lunuue jed -/OOO'OS'l'sy se peseeosp ^o AJE]BS ssoj6 9141 uonejepisuoo o}w BUK\B\ Aq uoiiesuadiuoo p lunouue eqi einduioo-ej 0} esodojd BM 'sjo^sjsqi 'zi. •SOOZ -leeA eqi ui peseaosp 341 Aq eiqeAed xei Ajoinieis 10 lunouue se ua^ei Aie^es sq ueo -/Q88Z 'sy 1° lunoiue isee|-te 'uoiuido jno u| •£OOZ jesA eq^ ui peseeosp p Aje|es eqi uodn eiqeAed xei ^oinieis ^o tunotue |enpe eq^ si lei^M ino tuiod 01 peiie^ siue||sdde sqi 1.1, ,,'psionpap sq isnuj uodnejeqi siqeAed xei ^o lunoiue Ajoinieis eqi 'eiuooui ^o lunoiue pies eqi LUOJI iei|i ppe 0} usiseq 'jsAsmoq 'Aeiu e/\A 'iyausq siq joi ejsm qoiLjM ssuo sqi 0} paiisinBui.isipBfluoo se AIILUE^ sq) 01 uoi)nquiuoo ys Aem Sahu 15. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the appellants for enhancement of the compensation is allowed in part. The compensation of Rs.10,48,000/- awarded by fhe Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.15,15,000/-. The enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.4,67,000/- shall carry interest @ 6 percent per annum from the date of application till its actual payment. Rest of the conditions mentioned in the award shall remain intact. The award stands modified to the above extent. 16. The respondents are granted three months' time to deposit enhanced amount of compensation of Rs. 4,67,000/- along with interest before the concerned claims Tribunal. No order as to costs. sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- . - N.K. Agrawal Judge