Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether, for determining just compensation under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the deceased's income should include salary components such as allowances, provident fund contribution, gratuity, superannuation benefits and other family-beneficial perquisites, while excluding only statutory deductions and purely personal reimbursements like medical reimbursement.
Analysis: The expression "just compensation" in Section 168 was held to require a broad and realistic approach. The relevant inquiry is not confined to the bare take-home pay, but extends to the full pay packet and other monetary or deferred benefits which would have accrued to the family as part of the deceased's contribution to household income. Contributions towards provident fund, gratuity, superannuation, insurance and similar family-oriented benefits were treated as relevant, because they represent deferred value or future advantage to the dependants. At the same time, medical reimbursement was excluded as it was considered a reimbursement for actual expenses and not part of income. The Court further held that only the statutory tax component was liable to be deducted from such income.
Conclusion: The income for computing compensation must include family-beneficial allowances and perquisites, subject to deduction only of statutory tax, and the compensation assessed by the High Court was not interfered with.