L.M.L. Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

- 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......throw any light as to what happened on 29-7-1997 when the case was fixed for adjudication and personal hearing. however, shri shishir kumar learned standing counsel states that if the adjudication is still pending, the respondents will take all necessary steps to finalise the adjudication proceedings as directed by the appellate authority and the proceedings will be finalised expeditiously provided the petitioner extends its co-operation without creating any hurdle or seeking unnecessary adjournments. in view of the above statement coming from bar which is very fair, we do not consider it necessary to keep this writ petition pending any more. however, we direct the assistant commissioner of central excise, division-ii, kanpur, the second respondent to complete the adjudication proceedings as directed by the commissioner (appeals) central excise, allahabad by his order dated 21-5-1996 as early as possible, preferably within a period of four months, a certified copy of this order is produced before him by the petitioner as suggested by the learned counsels for the parties. it is expected that the petitioner will co-operate with the assessing authority in the finalisation of its adjudication proceedings aforesaid.4. no other submission was urged before us, on behalf of the petitioner.5. subject to the above, the writ petition shall stand disposed of.