Future pay hikes cannot be the basis for determining the amount of compensation that the dependent of a government employee would get in case he’s killed in a road accident.
Future pay hikes, something that is possible only in government service now, cannot be the basis for determining the amount of compensation that the dependent of a government employee would get in case he’s killed in a road accident. This major ruling by the Supreme Court clarifies the scope of the Motor Accidents Claims law saying the compensation on the basis of future pay revision increase isn’t possible as the “imponderables” in life are too many.
A bench of justices RV Raveendran and Lokeshwar Singh Panta disposed a two-decade-old accident claim raised by Sarla Verma who lost her husband Rajinder Prakash, a scientist with the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR), in a road accident involving a Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC) bus on April 18, 1988.
The litigation dragged on as Sarla contended that since her husband had died at a young age of 38-years, still having 22 years of service, his dependents were entitled to higher compensation on the basis of the recommendations by future pay revision commissions.
The Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal in 1993 awarded of Rs5.94 lakh compensation to the victim’s family. But Sarla moved Delhi high court seeking greater compensation. In 2007, the high court enhanced compensation to Rs7.19 lakh.
Unsatisfied with this amount, Sarala moved the apex court saying the dependents were entitled to enhanced compensation on the basis of anticipated pay hike that would have accrued to Prakash had he been alive.
The apex court did not agree with this contention. “As against the contention of the appellants (Sarala Verma) that had the deceased been alive, he would have earned the benefit of revised pay scales, it is equally possible that had he not died in the accident, he might have died on account of ill-health or other accident or lost the employment or met some other calamity or disadvantage”.
Assuming that the claim petition filed in 1988 was disposed off by the tribunal the same year, then obviously the compensation would have been decided only with reference to the scale of pay applicable at the time of death and not with reference to any future revision in pay scales.
If the plea like Sarala Verma’s is allowed then there is every possibility of dependents in such cases delaying trial to avail enhanced compensation on the basis of future pay revision commissions.
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}