A recent legal case involved a dispute over the estimation of the deceased’s income in a compensation claim. The High Court and the Tribunal had conflicting conclusions regarding the monthly earnings, leading to an appeal by the aggrieved parties. This discrepancy in income assessment raised questions about the accuracy of the compensation awarded. Let’s delve into the complexities of income estimation in legal proceedings and its implications on the final verdict.
Facts
- The High Court enhanced the compensation for the deceased Nitin Sharda from Rs.4,10,000/- to Rs.10,97,200/-
- The High Court enhanced the compensation for the deceased Rajinder Pal Sharda from Rs.3,18,000/- to Rs.4,78,456/-
- The Tribunal awarded Rs.4,10,000/- to appellant No.4-Raj Rani, the mother of Nitin Sharda
- The Tribunal awarded Rs.50,000/- each to claimant Nos. 2 to 4, the son and daughters of Rajinder Pal Sharda
- The claimants were entitled to interest at a rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition
- Similar order for interest rate was passed by the Tribunal as in the other Claim Petition
- Rajinder Pal Sharda, Nitin Sharda, and Harmail Singh were taken to Rajendra Hospital, Patiala after a car accident
- Nitin Sharda and Harmail Singh succumbed to their injuries at the hospital
- A Claim Petition was filed for compensation for the death of Nitin Sharda
- The Tribunal fixed the monthly income of Nitin Sharda at Rs. 6,000 and awarded compensation
- The appellants accepted the compensation for the death of Rajinder Pal Sharda
- The accident occurred when a Scorpio Car driven by Harjinder Singh collided with the Hyundai Accent Car the victims were in
- Rajinder Pal Sharda died on the spot due to the impact of the collision
- A First Information Report was filed against Harjinder Singh at P.S. Sadar, Patiala
Also Read: Presumption of Genuine Endorsements in Cheque Case
Arguments
- The appellants are aggrieved by the notionally fixed monthly income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/-
- The respondent’s counsel argues that the deceased’s job was not permanent, justifying the income estimation
- Appellant’s counsel contends that the estimation of income by both the Tribunal and High Court was erroneous
- Salary certificate showing monthly salary of deceased as Rs.15,000/-.
- High Court and Tribunal findings that deceased’s monthly income was Rs.6,000/-.
- No interference warranted with concurrent findings.
Also Read: Medical Negligence and Compensation: A Landmark Decision
Analysis
- Deceased Nitin Sharda had cleared the 1st Semester of his M. Phil. in History course in April 2007.
- Nitin Sharda worked as a Manager at Regent Strips Pvt. Ltd., Gobindgarh.
- He was qualified, having a Master of Arts in History from Punjab University and was pursuing M. Phil. in History from Himachal Pradesh University.
- The Salary Certificate of Nitin Sharda showed a monthly salary of Rs.15,000/-.
- Mr. Rajiv Bhardawaj, a Clerk at Regent Strips Pvt. Ltd., Mandi Gobindgarh, testified regarding the Salary Certificate.
- The information provided establishes the deceased’s employment status and educational qualifications.
- The Tribunal and the High Court overlooked the duly proved Salary Certificate.
- Failure to give due weightage to the Salary Certificate was an error on their part.
Also Read: Remand of Writ Petition for Restoration and Decision on Merits
Decision
- The appeals are allowed in the above terms.
- The enhanced compensation of Rs.13,61,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum shall be paid to the appellants within a period of three months from the date of this order.
- ½ of (ii) above deducted towards personal expenses.
- Rs.21,000/- ÷ 2 = Rs.10,500/- (iv). Compensation after multiplier Rs.10,500/- x 12 x 18 = Rs.22,68,000/- (deceased was 23 years of age).
- Conventional Heads Loss of Rs.30,000/- towards estate and funeral.
- Loss of consortium Rs.1,20,000/- (Rs.40,000/- each to appellant Nos. 1 to 3).
- Loss of consortium Rs.40,000/- (to appellant No.4- the mother).
Case Title: PARAM PAL SHARDA Vs. DHANI RAM (2022 INSC 982)
Case Number: C.A. No.-006772-006773 / 2022
