Skip to main content

HC on adopting revised salary to arrive at compensation

Madras High Court Bench has ruled that if the pay revision for an employee who died in a mishap comes into effect from the date when that person was alive, then adoption of revised salary for arriving at compensation cannot be said to be illegal.

The addition of 30 per cent towards future prospects was also correct as the deceased, in this case a professor, was 46 years old when he died. "If the age is between 40 and 50, addition of income for future prospects should be 30 per cent. The trial court is correct in fixing the compensation," Justices V Ramasubramanian and V M Velumani said.

Prof. Ramaswamy died in a road mishap on July 10 2006.

The tribunal took into account that though the Professor's last drawn pay was Rs 29,320, the Sixth Pay Commission's recommendations were implemented from Jan 1 2006. It then fixed his last drawn salary as Rs 49,710 and arrived at a compensation of Rs 58,89,652.

The New India Assurance company assailed the finding, saying the Commission's recommendations of Mar 2008 were implemented only in 2009, much after the death of the victim.

However the Judges said this could not be accepted as the salary had been revised with retrospective effect from Jan 1 2006. Therefore the claimants would have received the arrears arising out of such revision for Jan 1-Jul 10 2006 period.

They were also entitled to add 30 per cent towards future prospects. Besides the Multiplier should have been 13 (13 more years of service) and not 12, as the petitioner was 46 years old, the Judges said and awarded total compensation of Rs 63,61,907 with 7.5 per cent interest.

The judges said the money should shared among the three claimants equally.

 Article referred: http://www.business-standard.com/article/pti-stories/hc-on-adopting-revised-salary-to-arrive-at-compensation-114051600125_1.html

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more

Procedure to be followed on admissibility of additional evidence at appeal stage

In The Corporation of Madras vs M. Parthasarathy & Ors., the trial court had allowed the respondent company to file evidence in the form of photocopies and had dismissed all the four suits filed by the respondents with costs as the evidence were in the form of photocopies and were objected to by the respondents. On appeal the Additional District Judge allowed the respondents to file additional evidence in the form the original documents of the earlier admitted photocopies and based on the same allowed the appeal. In its turn the High Court also dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants who in turn approached the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court decided that the first Appellate Court committed two jurisdictional errors in allowing the appeals.  Referring to earlier judgements of the Supreme Court in Land Acquisition Officer, City Improvement Trust Board vs. H. Narayanaiah & Ors., , Shalimar Chemical Works Ltd. vs. Surendra Oil & Dal Mills (Refineri...
Post a Comment
Read more