- 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.m. katju and onkareshwar bhatt, jj.1. the petitioner is challenging the impugned f.i.r. in case crime no. 13 of 2001, under sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 409, i.p.c., police station malawan, district etah, vide annexure 1 to the writ petition.2. the petitioner is the principal of suraj pal madhyamik vidyalaya, kargraula district etah and the allegation in the f.i.r. is that he has embezzled the scholarship fee.3. a large number of petitions are coming up before this court in which f.i.rs. have been filed against the principals and teachers of schools and colleges in u.p. alleging embezzlement of scholarship fee and other school funds. this just shows the level of degradation to which this country has sunk. principals and teachers of schools and colleges are supposed to be ideals for the students and youth, but unfortunately today they are often regarded as thieves by the students because they are often conducting themselves as thieves. hence we are not inclined to interfere with the f.i.r. however, we direct that the bail application of the petitioner be decided by the court concerned expeditiously.4. any observation made in this judgment will not prejudice the court hearing the bail application or the trial.5. the petition is disposed of.