SamaydIn Vs. State of U.P.

- 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. - ' 4. from an examination of the language of this sub-section it clearly follows that in normal circumstances the maintenance must be granted from date of the order......of the language of this sub-section it clearly follows that in normal circumstances the maintenance must be granted from date of the order. in only extraordinary circumstances, it may also be ordered to be paid from the date of application for maintenance. it is thus clear that there must be a discussion of such circumstances which warrant the court to allow it from the date of application. no other inference is permissible from the language of sub-section (2). one such extraordinary circumstance may be dilatory tactics adhered to by the husband in the disposal of the proceeding. the other one may be untold cruelty practised against his wife. no extensive ground can be formulated for doing so. the learned magistrate has not given any reason for allowing maintenance from the date of the application. nowhere in the judgment before delivering the operative portion he had shown any such inclination. as a matter of fact the court has taken the husband by surprise by making such a direction for the first time in the operative portion of the judgment. i am, under the circumstances, inclined to accept this contention and modify the order and make it payable from the date of order. the maintenance allowance shall be payable from the date of the order.5. accordingly this application is partly allowed.