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

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...

Mere Agreement To Sell The Leased Property To Tenant Would Not Terminate Landlord-Tenant Relationship

In CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 1237­1238 OF 2019, Dr. H.K. Sharma vs Shri Ram Lal, the tenant had objected against the eviction suit filed by the landlord, claiming that the landlord-tenant relationship between them had ceased to exist by virtue of an agreement for sale entered between them and that he has already paid some money in advance based on the agreement. The tenant contented as the landlord-tenant relationship did not exist, the landlord cannot evict him. The matter went through various forums and finally landed before the Supreme Court in appeal. The Supreme Court referring to the judgment in Shah Mathuradas Maganlal & Co. vs. Nagappa Shankarappa Malage & Ors., held that in the instant case the lease agreement included no clauses on the fate of the tenancy. A fortiori, the parties did not intend to surrender the tenancy rights despite entering into an agreement of sale of the tenanted property. In other words, if the parties really intended to surrender their tenancy ...

Valuation Report of Jewellery once made is effective for Four Assessment Years

The division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Pr.Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs. Raghu Hari Dalmia held that a valuation report made by a registered valuer once adopted shall be in effect for four assessment years unless an event has occurred whereby the value is increased or decreased. The High Court made it clear that the event of “search” under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot compel the assessee to undertake a fresh valuation.