Mohd. Ayub and anr. Vs. Xivth Additional District Judge and 3 ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- 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. - 3. when the case has been taken up today a prayer has been made by sri prabhakar sinha for granting further time to file rejoinder affidavit as well as affidavits to the recall application and the delay condonation application which has been opposed by sri manu saxena contending that neither the respondents have filed any affidavit in support of the delay condonation application nor have filed rejoinder affidavit in the recall application even though several opportunities have been granted to the counsel for the respondents.rakesh tiwari, j.1. heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.2. the case has been taken up in the revised list. from the order dated 14.3.2005 it appears that three weeks' time was granted to the counsel for the petitioners for filing rejoinder affidavit. thereafter the matter was taken up on 11.4.2005 when two weeks' time was granted to file reply to the recall application. thereafter the case was listed on 25.4.2005 when delay condonation application no. 45997 of 2004 was filed along with recall application no. 45998 of 2004 without supported by an affidavit. the rejoinder affidavit was also not filed. on the next date, i.e., on 26.4.05 the matter was passed over on the illness slip of sri prabhakar sinha, counsel for the respondents. on 3.5.2005 the case was passed over on the illness slip of sri manu saxena, counsel for the petitioners and the counsel for the respondents was again granted six weeks' time and no more to file rejoinder affidavit in the recall application.3. when the case has been taken up today a prayer has been made by sri prabhakar sinha for granting further time to file rejoinder affidavit as well as affidavits to the recall application and the delay condonation application which has been opposed by sri manu saxena contending that neither the respondents have filed any affidavit in support of the delay condonation application nor have filed rejoinder affidavit in the recall application even though several opportunities have been granted to the counsel for the respondents. the counsel for the respondents admits this position, but submits that his client is not responding and as such the case be adjourned again by granting further time to file the aforesaid affidavits. the avernments made in the counter affidavit to the recall application stand unrebutted for want of affidavit in support of the application to condone the delay in filing the recall application. the recall application is time barred for which there no explanation on affidavit. if the client is not respondent to file the affidavits no useful purpose would be served.4. the application for recall is accordingly rejected.