District Inspector of Schools Vs. Pradumn Kumar Gaur

- 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......learned standing counsel, appears on behalf of the appellant.3. it is not in dispute that the date of birth of the writ petitioner-respondent was recorded as 1st october, 1939 in his service book and on that basis, he attained the age of superannuation on 30.9.1997. however, after his retirement, a complaint was made that in fact, his date of birth is 1.10.1936 and, therefore, he shall not be entitled for the remuneration as also the three years' period that he had served after attaining the age of superannuation taking his date of birth to be 1st october, 1939. the learned single judge taking into account the fact that the writ petitioner-respondent served till 30.9.1997 on the basis of his date of birth entered in his service book, directed that he shall not be asked to refund the amount of salary paid to him upto 30.9.1997, and period of service till the said date will be counted for pensionary benefits.4. mr. m.s. pipersenia, learned standing counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellant, submits that the entry made in the high school certificate is decisive and, if that is taken into consideration, the writ petitioner-respondent ought to have been superannuated on 30.9.1994 and, therefore, direction of the learned single judge, not to seek refund of the amount and treat the three years' period for the pensionary benefits, is illegal.5. in the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the learned single judge did not err in giving that direction. the writ petitioner-respondent continued in service till 30.9.1997 on the basis of the entry made in his service book. the service book is maintained by the employer. not only this, the controversy in regard to the date of birth was raised after the retirement of the writ petitioner-respondent.6. in the facts and circumstances of the case, no case for interference in this appeal is made out.appeal stands dismissed.