* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 20th September, 2012 + MAC. APP. 842/2011 SUNITA AHOOJA & ORS. Appellants Through: Mr. Davinder Hora, Adv. with Mr. Sikandar Khan, Adv.
versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondents Through Mr. B.V. Niren, Adv. with Mr. Prasouk Jain, Adv. for R-1 to R-3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
J U D G M E N T
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
1. The Appeal is for enhancement of compensation of `10,33,568/- awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) in favour of the Appellants for the death of Banwari Lal Ahooja who died in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 12.05.2006.
2. Banwari Lal Ahooja (the deceased) took voluntary retirement from the Indian Army and joined Delhi Police. At the time of the accident, he was working as a Head Constable and was aged about 53 years. He was getting a salary of `10,454/- per month from Delhi Police and a pension of `3056/- per month from Indian Army. In the year 2008, the salaries of Govt. employees were revised retrospectively w.e.f. 01.01.2006. It was established that the deceased was paid arrears on account of revision of the pay scales. Taking his revised salary as `12,698/-, the Claims Tribunal added pension of `3056/-, deducted one-third towards personal and living expenses to compute the loss of dependency as `9,53,568/-. After making addition towards non-pecuniary damages, the overall compensation of `10,33,568/- was awarded.
3. The following contentions are raised on behalf of the Appellants:-
(i) The salary of the deceased at the time of the accident was `12,698/-. However, on the date of examination of the witness in the year 2009, his salary would have been `23,991/-. Thus, the Appellants ought to have been granted compensation on taking deceased’s salary as `23,991/- against `12,698-.
(ii) The pension of `3056/- also must have been revised because of the Sixth Pay Commission. The Appellants were not awarded compensation considering the enhanced pension.
(iii) In Delhi Police, normally a salary of 13 months is provided to an employee. Thus, the compensation should have been awarded on the basis of 13 months’ salary instead of 12 months.
4. I shall be dealing with the contention one by one.
5. It is well settled that to compute the loss of dependency, the income of the deceased at the time of the death has to be taken into consideration. It is not disputed that even after revision of the pay scales on implementation of Sixth Pay Commission, the deceased’s salary on the date of death was `12,698/- per month. Thus, the salary on the date of the death is the only criteria for determination of the loss of dependency, which has been rightly done by the Claims Tribunal.
6. No evidence was led by the Appellants to prove as to whether the deceased’s pension was to be revised retrospectively. Thus, the Claims Tribunal rightly took into consideration pension which was being paid to the deceased at the time of his death, that is, `3056/- per month.
7. No evidence was led by the Appellants to prove that the deceased was being paid salary for 13 months instead of 12 months as an employee of Delhi Police. In the absence of any evidence, it is difficult to say that the deceased was being paid salary for an additional month. Thus, the Claims Tribunal rightly considered salary for 12 months to compute the loss of dependency.
8. The Appeal is devoid of any merit; the same is accordingly dismissed.
9. Pending Applications stand disposed of.
SEPTEMBER 20 , 2012 vk (G.P. MITTAL) JUDGE