Rejendra Prasad Vs. Regional Secretary, Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad and anr. - 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.o.p. garg, j.1. heard sri a.k. yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner.2. the date of birth of the petitioner in the high school certificate, it is alleged has been wrongly mentioned as 10.2.1976 while it should have been 3.7.1978. the petitioner made a representation for correction of his date of birth to respondent no. 2 but the representation has been rejected on the ground that it was filed beyond the time prescribed.3. after having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, i find that it is necessary that the controversy may be decided on merit by respondent no. 2 after taking into consideration the material which may be brought before him by the petitioner after hearing him.4. the writ petition is finally disposed of with the direction that respondent no. 2, secretary, madhyamik shiksha parishad, u.p. allahabad shall decide the question of correct date of birth of the petitioner by a speaking order within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him.5. needless to say, that the petitioner shall be permitted to produce before him the relevant affidavit and the material in support of his contention.