K. Kannan, J. - (1.) ALL the above cases arise out of the same accident involving a passenger car and a truck in which three persons had died and one was injured. All the cases address the issue of adequacy of compensation assessed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. At the trial, there was also an attempt by the insurance company to contend that the insured's vehicle had not been involved at all in the accident. There were perhaps several instances to excite suspicion of Court but it found that the insured's vehicle had been involved by the only fact that the driver himself had admitted to the involvement but he was contending that there had been no negligence on his part. Before the Tribunal, again, it was not possible to make an inference of any form of collusion between the owner and the claimants. I will let the issue of the involvement of the vehicle as fully concluded by the judgment and I will proceed to examine this batch of cases only as regards the adequacy of compensation.
(2.) IN FAO No. 3455 of 2005 the claim arises at the instance of the widow and two minor children. The deceased was a Deputy Superintendent of Police and the income certificate had been produced before the Court through PW2. His monthly income had been shown at Rs. 14,644/ -. It was in evidence that his wife had been given employment on compassionate ground on 19.10.2001 and she was getting salary of Rs. 10,000/ -per month. The Tribunal, therefore, took the income of the wife as going in deduction and took the remaining amount, which would have come to the family as going to the contribution to the family, adopted a suitable multiplier relating to the age and determined a compensation of Rs. 4,32,000/ -. Learned senior counsel appearing for the claimants contends that this is wholly erroneous and the income earned by the wife was for services rendered and not paid gratuitously. A compassionate appointment, whether it could have any bearing to the compensation, has gone through a slight change from the way it was at all times understood and applied with the pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhakra Beas Management Board v. Kanta Aggarwal : 2008(11) SCC 366. In that case the wife had been given compassionate appointment and also provided with free accommodation. Against the compensation of Rs. 8 lacs which had been assessed by the Tribunal without reference to the compassionate appointment and benefits that had been extended, the Hon'ble Supreme Court reduced the compensation at Rs. 5 lacs. This Court itself had an occasion to deal with a scheme of compassionate assistance given by the Haryana State Government in a decision in New India Assurance Company Limited through its Deputy Manager v. Santosh and others in FAO No. 2246 and 3432 of 2009 decided on 29.09.2010. The details of the compassionate assistance scheme was slightly different in that it provided for the salary that was being earned by the husband on the date of his death to be given to the representatives of the family for a certain number of years. As per the terms of the scheme, it was not necessary that any of the members of the family had to render any services but all the payments were gratuitous in one sense and the only element of quid pro quo that could be attributed was that the payment was being made for the services rendered by the husband as a measure of compassionate assistance. While deciding the cases in paragraph 12, I had observed as follows: 12. When we consider whether there could be any deduction made for benefits received by the legal representatives of the deceased, the following questions must be asked: Is the benefit the direct result of death? If yes, is the benefit a mode of deferred wage or a return for present services rendered? If yes again, there shall be no deduction. On the contrary, is it a legally enforceable right of monetary benefit that requires no compulsory service to be rendered by the representative to claim the benefit? If the answer yes, appropriate deduction shall have to be made, though it may not result in total effacement of the claim.
(3.) THE difference, in my view, is if the benefit which accrues to a person is not purely gratuitous then there will be no deduction. If, on the other hand, a benefit comes wholly gratuitously and it is based on an enforceable right then a monetary benefit that accrues can be deducted. There have been several decisions that have always held a compassionate appointment given to a person shall not be factored while determining compensation. It is not without a legal reason. The reason is that the salary that a person gets is for the services rendered and not directly on account of death of a person. In this case, the salary which a wife gets @Rs.10,000/ -is not given to her gratuitously to apply a straight deduction. On the other hand, she was receiving the salary for the services which she was rendering. It must be again noticed that if her husband had been alive, she could have still secured a job through open market competition or she may not have, at all. Now she has to work in order to earn what her husband would have earned if he had been alive. The deduction of the entire amount which she was earning, was, therefore, not definitely appropriate at all. Again, it is not possible to make a very clear deduction from the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhakra Beas Management's case the extent of deduction that could be possible. In that case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court did not make any calculation but had scaled down the determination from Rs. 8 lacs to Rs. 5 acs. The definite benefit that was noted was that she had been given a rent free accommodation and she was allowed to continue in the same house in which they were living, when her husband was alive and offered as official accommodation. The family also had some free medical services. Beyond that, there is nothing in the judgment for an inference that a person who had secured compassionate employment and drawing salary could go in total deduction. There is, therefore, no justification at all for a person to be denied the benefit of compensation which is to be ascertained in the normal fashion. The only modification which I will, however, make is that in terms of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma v. DTC : 2009 (6) SCC 121, for a person who is aged less than 40 years and who has a definite prospect of increase in salary, the judgment advocates for applying a 50% increase. I will not make any such increase, having regard to the special circumstances ingested in this case that the wife had stood by an employment and she was also receiving a salary. The same employment would not have been granted to her on compassionate grounds if he had been alive. It is not as if she could have demanded an employment in a compassionate appointment scheme. I would, therefore, take the monthly income of the husband to be Rs. 15,000/ - and would make a deduction of 10% as going towards tax. I would, therefore, take the income to be Rs. 13,500/ -, make a deduction of 1/3rd and take 2/3rd as going towards contribution to the family. This will mean the contribution would be Rs. 9,000/ -per month and per year it will be Rs. 1,08,000/ -. I would apply a multiplier of 17 for a person who was aged 32 years and take the loss of dependence at Rs. 18,36,000/ -. I will add a further sum of Rs. 14,000/ -towards loss of love and affection and loss of consortium to the wife and provide for a further sum of Rs. 5,000/ -towards funeral expenses. I will not make any addition again to the loss of estate since the wife has come by benefit by virtue of employment and what accumulation could have gone to the estate would now come to the estate of the wife by her own employment. The total amount of compensation that will become payable would be Rs. 18,55,000/ -and the amount in excess over what has been awarded by the Tribunal shall bear interest @6% from the date of the petition till the date of payment. The distribution of the amount shall be amongst all the claimants equally.;