Rajesh Kumar, J. - (1.) Heard counsel for the parties.
(2.) The case of the plaintiff appellant is that one Sajan Dubey aged about 45 years, an employee of M/s TISCO has died in accident. The Learned Court below after examining the entire facts and evidence on record and after hearing the parties has awarded a sum of Rs. 8,57,060/- without interest. It has been ordered that if the said amount is not paid within 30 days, it will carry the interest of 6% per annum. It is the claim of the Insurance Company, which is also accepted by the plaintiff appellant that the amount has been paid within time.
(3.) The factors which are not in dispute in the present case is that the age of deceased was 45 years. His gross income was taken as Rs. 11,210.79/- and number of dependents is three i.e. widow and two minor daughters. On these factors the calculation has been made. The ground taken by the appellant is that although gross income has been shown as 11,210.79 but net income after some deduction i.e. Rs. 7063.00/- has been considered for compensation. This net income has been taken into consideration for calculating the compensation. The learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the judgment as in case of Yerramma & Ors. vs. G. Krishnamurthy & Anr., 2015 AIR(SCW) 514 at paragraph 13 as quoted herein below:- "The Tribunal on examining the salary slip of the deceased for the month of April, 2011 determined the salary of the deceased at Rs. 21,168/- per month after deducting towards P.T. and other statutory deductions. Therefore, the Tribunal arrived at Rs. 21,168/- per month as the salary of the deceased. The High Court in its impugned judgment and order affirmed the same. We are of the view, that on the facts and circumstances of this case, the net salary of the deceased taken by the Tribunal and the High Court for determination of loss of dependency is erroneous as it is not in accordance with the principles laid down by this Court in this regard. Therefore the same is liable to be set aside as it has to be properly determined by taking gross income of the deceased. It is clear that the gross income of the deceased at the time of his death as per his salary slip was Rs. 26,000/- per month. Therefore, we are of the view that a just and reasonable compensation under the head of loss of dependency has not been determined by the courts below. Thus, the impugned judgment and order of the High Court is vitiated both on account of erroneous finding and error in law. The gross salary drawn by the deceased at the time of his death was Rs. 26,000/- per month. The High Court and the Tribunal have taken the net salary at Rs. 21,168/- per month, thereby the Courts below have erred in making deductions from the gross salary of the deceased towards P.T. of Rs. 200/- and other statutory deductions and therefore, arriving at Rs. 21,168/- per month as the net salary of the deceased is erroneous in law. Therefore, we are of the view that both the Tribunal and the High Court have erred in not following the rules laid down by this Court in Indira Srivastavas, 2008 AIR(SC) 845 in not taking gross income of the deceased to determine the loss of dependency".;