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

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...
Post a Comment
Read more