Tata Engineering And... v. Vasanthi (Alias) Ana..., Madras High Court, Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Case Number

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1319 of 1994

Advocates

Sri K.S Narasimhan.
For Cavators.— Sri V.S.R Hanu Babu.

Judges

M. Srinivasan
S.S Subramani, JJ.

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

The appeal challenges a tribunal's award in a claim petition arising from the death of a Postal Department employee aged about 30. The deceased earned Rs. 1,357 per month according to a produced salary certificate and left a wife (about 28 years old) and a minor son; the deceased's parents were impleaded as respondents 3 and 4 in the claim petition. The tribunal found negligence on the part of the appellants and assessed compensation. The appellate court accepted the tribunal's finding on negligence and considered arguments on the quantum of compensation and related deductions.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the tribunal's finding of negligence against the appellants should be disturbed.
Whether the salary received by the first claimant (wife), who was later employed on compassionate grounds, should be deducted from the compensation awarded to the claimants.
Whether the multiplier of 28 adopted (by the tribunal) was excessive and whether an annuity table approach (resulting in a multiplier of 16, as contended) should be applied.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

The salary of the first claimant (the widow), who obtained employment on compassionate grounds, should be deducted from the compensation awarded to the claimants.
The multiplier of 28 used by the tribunal is on the high side; an annuity-table based approach should be used, and a reasonable multiplier in this case would be 16. Reliance was placed on Chairman, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation v. Shafiya Khatoon and Ors. 1985 A.C.J. 212.

Claimants' Position

The claimants adduced overwhelming evidence on the question of negligence, which was not contradicted by the appellants; the tribunal's finding of negligence should therefore be upheld.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Arunaben Abfan and Ors. v. Mehboobhai Imamali Kaji and Ors	Authority supporting that salary obtained by dependants in employment on compassionate grounds should not be deducted from compensation.	The court relied on this view to reject the appellants' contention that the first claimant's salary should be deducted from the award.
1983 A.C.J. 409	See above (same citation string as in the opinion).	Referenced as part of the authorities supporting non-deduction of the widow's salary.
State of Himachal Pradesh v. Chaina Ram	Authority following the same view on non-deduction of compassionate employment salary.	The court noted this had been followed by the Himachal Pradesh High Court and used it to support refusal to deduct the salary.
1989 A.C.J. 13	See above (same citation string as in the opinion).	Referenced as the cited reporter details for Chaina Ram.
Sudershan Puri and Ors. v. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and Anr	Authority aligned with the view that compassionate employment salary should not be treated as compensation to be set off.	Noted by the court as having taken a similar view; used to reinforce rejection of appellants' deduction argument.
1983 A.C.J. 489	See above (same citation string as in the opinion).	Reporter citation given in the opinion for Sudershan Puri.
Nirmala Sharma v. Raja Ram	Another authority supporting non-deduction of compassionate employment salary.	Quoted by the court as consistent authority; used in rejecting deduction argument.
1982 A.C.J. 143	See above (same citation string as in the opinion).	Reporter citation provided in the opinion for Nirmala Sharma.
Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation v. Shafiya Khatoon and Ors	Authority which applied annuity tables; cited by appellants to support use of a lower multiplier (16).	The court considered the citation but declined to adopt that approach here because the appellants had not adduced the necessary evidence or pleadings to justify use of annuity tables in this case.
1985 A.C.J. 212	See above (same citation string as in the opinion).	Reporter citation given for the Shafiya Khatoon case as relied upon by the appellants.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court proceeded in the following steps, based on the material before it:

Negligence: The court found no merit in the appeal on negligence because the claimants had adduced overwhelming evidence which the appellants did not contradict; therefore the tribunal's finding of negligence was accepted.
Facts relevant to quantum: The deceased was about 30 years old, employed in the Postal Department with monthly salary of Rs. 1,357; he left a wife (about 28) and a minor son, and his parents were parties in the claim. The tribunal assumed one-third of salary for personal expenses and thus calculated an annual contribution figure of Rs. 11,500 to the family.
Multiplier and award: On a multiplier of 28 the tribunal's calculation would yield Rs. 3,22,000, but the tribunal awarded a rounded sum of Rs. 3,00,000 in total and apportioned it among the legal representatives. The tribunal also noted the possibility of future increases in income (as the deceased was a government servant) but did not give separate credit for gradual increases.
Deduction of widow's salary: The appellants' contention that the widow's salary (from employment given on compassionate grounds) should be deducted was rejected. The court reasoned that employment given on compassionate grounds depends on qualifications and is not an ex gratia payment or compensation for the death; the widow earns her salary by performing work. Moreover, the appellants had not admitted liability or shown that employment was given as compensation. The court relied on prior High Court authorities taking the same view.
Use of annuity tables / multiplier: The appellants argued for a lower multiplier (16) using annuity tables as in an Andhra Pradesh decision. The court refused this because application of annuity tables (or any alternative method) requires sufficient evidence and particulars to be placed before the court. The appellants had not examined any witnesses, filed documents, asked cross‑examination questions, or pleaded particulars that would enable the court to calculate compensation on that basis. The court treated the question of compensation as one dependent on the facts and circumstances of the case and found the tribunal's award of Rs. 3,00,000 reasonable given the dependants (young widow, minor son and aged parents).

Holding and Implications

DISMISSED

Holding: The civil miscellaneous appeal was dismissed. The tribunal's finding of negligence was upheld, and the tribunal's quantum — Rs. 3,00,000 awarded in total and apportioned among the legal representatives — was held to be reasonable.

Implications: The direct effect is that the tribunal's award stands and the appellants' arguments for deduction of the widow's salary and for adopting a lower multiplier based on annuity tables were rejected. The opinion does not set out broader implications beyond the disposition in this case.

Show full summary ...

Tata Engineering And Locomotive Company, Ltd., And Another v. Vasanthi (Alias) Anantha Lakshmi And Others

1. There is no merit in this appeal. On the question of negligence, there is overwhelming evidence adduced by the claimants which has not been contradicted by any evidence on the side of the appellants. Hence the finding of the tribunal on the question of negligence is accepted.

2. The deceased was aged about 30. He was employed in the Postal Department. The salary certificate is produced according to which he was getting a sum of Rs. 1,357 p.m. He would have certainly continued in service upto 58 but for his untimely death. He had left his wife aged about 28, who is the first claimant and minor son the second claimant. Besides, the parents of the deceased have been impleaded as respondents 3 and 4 in the claim petition.

3. The Tribunal had taken the view that the deceased would have taken 1/3 of his salary for his personal expenses and given the balance to the family. On that footing, the Tribunal has arrived at a figure of Rs. 11,500 p.a. as contribution to the family. If the multiplier of 28 is adopted, the amount will be Rs. 3,22,000 but the tribunal has chosen to give only Rs. 3,00,000 in all and apportion the same among the Legal Representatives.

4. The tribunal has also taken note of the fact that the income of the deceased would have increased in course of years as he was a Government servant. No credit has been given to the gradual increase in the income which the deceased would have got in the later years.

5. Learned Counsel for the appellants contends that the first claimant has been given employment on compassionate grounds and her salary should be deducted from the compensation awarded to the claimants. There is no merit in this contention. No doubt, employment may be given on compassionate grounds but it depends upon the qualification of the person concerned. Further, it is not an amount paid ex gratia or as compensation for the death of the deceased. Work is extracted from the first claimant, for that the amount is paid to her. She earns her salary by working therefor. Hence, that amount cannot form part of the compensation to be given to the claimants. Secondly, the appellants have not admitted their liability to pay compensation and it is not as if they gave employment to the first claimant as a matter of compensation for the death of her husband. Hence, there is no substance in the argument that the salary of the first claimant in her employment shall be deducted from the compensation. This view has been taken by the Gujarat High Court in Arunaben Abfan and Ors. v. Mehboobhai Imamali Kaji and Ors. 1983 A.C.J. 409. That has been followed by the Himachal Pradesh High Court in the case of State of Himachal Pradesh v. Chaina Ram 1989 A.C.J. 13. Similar view has been taken by Rajasthan High Court in the case of Sudershan Puri and Ors. v. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and Anr. 1983 A.C.J. 489 and the, Delhi High Court in Nirmala Sharma v. Raja Ram 1982 A.C.J. 143. Hence we reject this contention.

6. It is next argued by learned Counsel for the appellants that the multiplier of 28 should not have been adopted and it is on the high side. According to him, the multiplier should have been fixed on the basis of annuity tables and the reasonable multiplier in this case will be only 16. Learned Counsel contends that the view taken by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Chairman, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation v. Shafiya Khatoon and Ors. 1985 A.C.J. 212 should be adopted in this case, by us. We do not agree. For applying any annuity table or any other principle to work out compensation, it is absolutely necessary for the parties to adduce sufficient evidence and in this case, the appellants have not chosen to examine any witness or filed any document so as to enable the court to calculate the compensation, nor any question was put in the cross-examination of the claimants which will enable the court to work out the method of compensation. In the absence of such particulars, it is not possible to accept the contention of learned Counsel that the annuity table should be utilised in this case for arriving at the figure of compensation. There is no pleading by the appellants in this regard. This is not a pure question of law. The question of compensation has to be decided on the facts and circumstances of the case. In this case we find that the deceased has left a young widow and a minor son besides aged parents. In those circumstances the compensation awarded at Rs. 3,00,000 to the claimants and the parents of the deceased is quite reasonable and just. The civil miscellaneous appeal is therefore dismissed.

Tata Engineering And... v. Vasanthi (Alias) Ana...