MAC .APP.381/2007 Page 1 of 4 19 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + MAC.APP.381/2007 Date of Decision: 8th April, 2009 % THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. ..... Appellant Through : Mr. R.K. Tripathi, Adv. versus USHA SHARMA & ORS. ..... Respondents Through : Mr. Navneet Goyal, Adv. for R-1 to 4. CORAM :- THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? JUDGMENT (Oral) 1. The appellant has challenged the award of the learned Tribunal whereby compensation of Rs.1,28,43,400/- has been awarded to claimants/respondents No.1 to 4. 2. The accident dated 15th June, 2002 resulted in the death of Rajneesh Bhanot. The deceased was aged 29 years at the time of the accident and was survived by his widow, minor daughter and parents who filed the claim petition before the learned Tribunal. 3. The deceased was working as Project Manager Grade IV with Infosys Technologies Ltd. drawing a gross salary of MAC .APP.381/2007 Page 2 of 4 Rs.53,410/- per month. The annual remuneration of the deceased at the time of the accident was Rs.6,40,920/-. Considering the future prospects, the learned Tribunal took the income of the deceased as Rs.12,81,840/-. 1/3rd was deducted towards personal expenses and the loss of dependency was computed at Rs.8,54,560/-. The learned Tribunal applied the multiplier of 15 to compute the compensation at Rs.1,28,18,400/-. Rs.5,000/- was awarded towards funeral charges and Rs.20,000/- towards loss of consortium, love and affection. 4. The only ground raised before this Court is that there is apparent contradiction of the documents filed by claimants/respondents No.1 to 4 regarding the proof of income. The learned counsel points out that Ex.P-13 is the certificate issued by the employer, M/s Infosys Technologies Ltd. in which it is stated that the gross monthly income of the deceased was Rs.53,410/- whereas in Ex.P-18/P-19 which is Form-16 filed by the employer with the Income Tax Department, the gross salary has been mentioned as Rs.5,41,384/- and in Ex.P-16, the gross salary of the deceased has been mentioned as Rs.45,679/-. 5. I have examined the said documents. Along with Ex.P- 13, the employer has also given the detailed computation of the gross salary in the annexure. The break-up of Rs.53,410/- per month is as under:- MAC .APP.381/2007 Page 3 of 4 “Particulars Amount (In Rs. Per Month) 1) Monthly Components Basic Salary 13110/- Dearness Allowance 1100/- Basket of Allowances 20354/- Special Allowance 6141/- Take Home Salary 40705/- 2) Quarterly Components Company Performance-linked 5342/- Incentive 3) Annual Components Bonus 2842/- 4) Retiral Benefits Provident Fund Contribution 1705/- Gratuity 684/- Superannuation 2132/- 5) Gross Salary per month 53410/-“ 6. There is no inconsistency between Ex.P-13, Ex.P-18/P- 19 and Ex.P-16. However, since the Ex.P-18/P-19 and Ex.P- 16 does not contain all the heads as given in Ex.P-13, the total amount mentioned in Ex.P-16 and Ex.P-18/P-19 is lower than the total amount mentioned in Ex.P-13. Some of the heads such as provident fund contribution of Rs.1,705/-, gratuity of Rs.684/-, company performance linked incentive of Rs.5,342/- have not been included in Ex.P-16 and Ex.P-18 whereas the other heads in all the documents are substantially the same and, therefore, no adverse inference can be drawn in the present case. MAC .APP.381/2007 Page 4 of 4 8. The record of the learned Tribunal shows that the appellant did not cross-examine the witnesses PW1 to PW3 who proved the income of the deceased. As such, the testimony of the witnesses of the claimants remained unrebutted before the learned Tribunal. 9. There is no infirmity in the computation of compensation by the learned Tribunal. 10. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. CM No.8547/2007 The application is dismissed. The ex-parte interim stay stands vacated. Cross-Objections No.16037/2008 1. Since the appeal has been dismissed, the learned counsel for claimants/respondents No.1 to 4 does not press the cross-objections. 2. The cross-objections are dismissed as not pressed. J.R. MIDHA, J APRIL 08, 2009 aj