State of U.P. and ors. Vs. Jai Prakash Singh and ors.

- motor vehicles act, 1988 [c.a. no. 59/1988]section 168; [s.b. sinha & h.s. bedi, jj ] determination of compensation meaning of income of victim held, the term income has different connotations for different purposes. a court of law, having regard to the change in societal conditions must consider the question not only having regard to pay packet the employee carries home at the end of the month but also other perks which are beneficial to the members of the entire family. loss caused to the family on a death of a near and dear one can hardly be compensated on monetary terms. section 168 uses the word just compensation which, in our opinion, should be assigned a broad meaning. it cannot be lost sight of the fact that the private sector companies in place of introducing a pension scheme takes recourse to payment of contributory provident fund, gratuity and other perks to attract the people who are efficient and hard working. different offers made to an officer by the employer, same may be either for the benefit of the employee himself or for the benefit of the entire family if some facilities are being provided whereby the entire family stands to benefit, the same, must be held to be relevant for the purpose of computation of total income on the basis whereof the amount of compensation payable for the death of the kith and kin of the applicants is required to be determined. the amounts, therefore, which were required to be paid to the deceased by his employer by way of perks, should be included for computation of his monthly income as that would have been added to his monthly income by way of contribution to the family as contradistinguished to the ones which were for his benefit. from the said amount of income, the statutory amount of tax payable thereupon must be deducted......order a recall application duly supported with an affidavit, was filed on 2nd april, 1996. thereafter, an application for early listing of the recall application was filed on 8th may, 2000. however, as fee writ petitioner filed a contempt petition, the present special appeal has been filed. sri h.n. singh has submitted that there is inordinate delay in filing the appeal and every day's delay has not been explained. in our opinion., in the facts and circumstances of the case, the delay in filing the appeal deserves to be condoned. in g. ramegowda v. the special land acquisition officer, bangalore, air 1988 supreme court 897, it has been held that the expression 'sufficient cause' occurring in section 3 must receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice and generally delays in preferring appeals are required to be condoned in the interest of justice where no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bona fides is imputable to the party seeking condonation of the delay. in state of haryana v. chandra mani and ors., air 1996 supreme court 1623, it has been held that the state stands on different footing and where the state is seeking condonation of delay a technical view should not be taken. in state of bihar and ors. v. kameshwar prasad singh and anr., jt 2000 (5) sc 389, delay of 679 days was condoned and it was held that the technicalities of law cannot prevent the courts from doing substantial justice and undo illegalities. having given our careful consideration to the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties and the material on record, we are of the opinion that the delay in filing the appeal has been satisfactorily explained.3. the application is accordingly allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is condoned.