LawforAll

▼
Tuesday, September 27, 2016

“whether the compensation received from the Government under the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Defendants of Deceased Governments Employees Rules, 2006 (or otherwise) is to be deducted from the total compensation, which is payable to the dependents of the deceased, who dies in an accident, while computing financial benefits through ex-gratia payments by the Government?” = Section 167 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which reads thus: “167. Option regarding claims for compensation in certain cases.--- Notwithstanding anything contained in the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923) where the death of, or bodily injury to, any person gives rise to a claim for compensation under this Act and also under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, the person entitled to compensation may without prejudice to the provisions of Chapter X claim such compensation under either of those Acts but not under both.” -Indeed, similar statutory exclusion of claim receivable under the Rules of 2006 is absent. That, however, does not mean that the Claims Tribunal should remain oblivious to the fact that the claim towards loss of Pay and wages of the deceased has already been or will be compensated by the employer in the form of ex-gratia financial assistance on compassionate grounds under Rule 5 (1). The Claims Tribunal has to adjudicate the claim and determine the amount of compensation which appears to it to be just. The amount receivable by the dependants / claimants towards the head of pay and allowances in the form of ex-gratia financial assistance, therefore, cannot be paid for the second time to the claimants. True it is, that the Rules of 2006 would come into play if the Government employee dies in harness even due to natural death. At the same time, the Rules of 2006 do not expressly enable the dependents of the deceased Government employee to claim similar amount from the tortfeasor or Insurance Company because of the accidental death of the deceased Government employee. The harmonious approach for determining a just compensation payable under the Act of 1988, therefore, is to exclude the amount received or receivable by the dependents of the deceased Government employee under the Rules of 2006 towards the head financial assistance equivalent to “pay and other allowances” that was last drawn by the deceased Government employee in the normal course. This is not to say that the amount or payment receivable by the dependents of the deceased Government employee under Rule 5 (1) of the Rules, is the total entitlement under the head of “loss of income”. So far as the claim towards loss of future escalation of income and other benefits, if the deceased Government employee had survived the accident can still be pursued by them in their claim under the Act of 1988. For, it is not covered by the Rules of 2006. Similarly, other benefits extended to the dependents of the deceased Government employee in terms of sub-rule (2) to sub-rule (5) of Rule 5 including family pension, Life Insurance, Provident Fund etc., that must remain unaffected and cannot be allowed to be deducted, which, any way would be paid to the dependents of the deceased Government employee, applying the principle expounded in Helen C.Rebello and Patricia Jean Mahajan’s cases (supra). appellants must succeed only to the extent of amount receivable by the dependents of the deceased Government employee in terms of Rule 5(1) of the Rules 2006, towards financial assistance equivalent to the loss of pay and wages of the deceased employee for the period specified.

›
                                                                (REPORTABLE)                         IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA     ...

Section 17(B) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947= The workmen, however, must be compensated in lieu of reinstatement. Applying the principle underlying the decisions of this Court in Ruby General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. P.P. Chopra[1] and the recent case of Delhi International Airport (P) Ltd. vs. Union of India[2], in our considered opinion, interest of justice would be met by enhancing the amount of compensation in lieu of reinstatement/absorption and regularisation quantified at Rs.1,50,000/-(Rupees One Lakh Fifty Thousand) to each workmen. For, the workmen have already received wages from October 2004 to January 2012 in terms of the order under Section 17(B) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 without any work assigned to them. The respondent paid minimum wages to the concerned workmen during the relevant period as the workmen were not able to produce any document in support of their last drawn wages. This lump sum compensation amount of Rs.1,50,000/- to each workmen would be in full and final settlement of all the claims of the concerned workmen and substitute the order passed by the Tribunal to that extent, without any further enquiry as to whether the concerned workmen was gainfully employed during the relevant period or not. The respondent shall deposit the amount payable in terms of this order to the workmen before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Dhanbad, within three months from today. Failing which, shall be liable to pay interest thereon at the rate of 10% p.a. from today till the amount is deposited or paid to the concerned workmen, whichever is earlier. The Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Dhanbad, shall cause to disburse the amount to the concerned workmen subject to verification.

›
                                                        (Non-Reportable)                         IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA         ...
Sunday, September 25, 2016

Happy Birth Day Smt. Shruthi Nithin.

›
Wish you ….......... a Very Very Very Happy Birth Day Smt. Shruthi Nithin. My dear little Girl This is the first Birt...
Friday, September 23, 2016

Vodafone had failed to comply with its obligation under the Interconnect Agreement and had routed international calls as national calls making it liable to pay damages for the loss suffered by BSNL= the core of which, insofar as BSNL is concerned, is that Tata Teleservices Limited having taken the benefit of the Circular dated 13.06.2005, (made effective from 01.05.2003) for the latter part of the period involved, its liability would accrue from the said date and the demand has been worked out on the basis that 48.9% of the calls are non-CLI calls and therefore Clause 6.4.6 would apply. It is urged that the contention of the Tata Teleservices Limited that the calls are less than 0.5% is plainly incorrect. 29. In reply, it is urged that Clause 6.4.6 of the Interconnect agreement, in the form and content in which it has been applied to the case of the respondent, was introduced by the addendum dated 01.12.2005, effective from 14.11.2003. In the present case, the alleged violation of Clause 6.4.6 is on the ground of transmitting calls without CLI. It is urged that upto the date on which Clause 6.4.6 came into operation i.e. 14.11.2003, the demand raised on the said basis is without any authority. It is further submitted that the receipt of calls without CLI having been disapproved/rejected by the TRAI and there being express directions requiring BSNL to reject such calls, the appellant cannot take advantage of its own action contrary to the directions of the Regulator i.e. TRAI. Furthermore, according to the respondent, the Circular dated 13.06.2005 prohibits BSNL to mechanically apply Clause 6.4.6 and it is only upon elimination of technical failures, incompatibility between exchanges, etc. that Clause 6.4.6 can be resorted to and that too for the period after 14.11.2003. it is the case of the appellant BSNL itself that non-CLI calls transmitted by the Tata Teleservices Limited to the BSNL network was more than 0.5% and hence Clause 6.4.6 of the Interconnect agreement would be applicable, ex facie, the demand raised for the period from May 2003 to November 2003 would be without any legal authority inasmuch as Clause 6.4.6 became a part of the Interconnect agreement between the parties with retrospective effect from 14.11.2003.In view of the aforesaid finding recorded by the learned Tribunal with which this Court is in full agreement, it will not be necessary to go into any other issue so far as the demand for the said period is concerned. For the remaining period i.e. November, 2003 to May 2004 during which period Clause 6.4.6 was in force, the finding of the learned Tribunal that Tata Teleservices Limited should be given an opportunity and the quantum of loss suffered by B.S.N.L. should be computed accordingly would, however, require a close look. In Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Vs. Reliance Communication Limited (supra), this Court has held that Clause 6.4.6 prescribes a pre-estimate of reasonable compensation. The premise on which the learned Tribunal had held the necessity of affording an opportunity to Tata Teleservices Limited for determination of the quantum of loss suffered by BSNL for the period from November 2003 to May 2004 proceeded on the basis that Clause 6.4.6 is a penal clause As the said basis stands altered by the decision of this Court in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. vs. Reliance Communication Limited (supra), computation of liability for the period from November 2003 to May 2004, during which period Clause 6.4.6 was in operation, must necessarily be made in accordance with the terms of the said clause. The order of the learned Tribunal, therefore, to the aforesaid extent, is set aside and the appeal is partly allowed. The demand raised for the period from May 2003 to November 2003, as held earlier, shall stand set aside while for the period from 14.11.2003 to May, 2004 shall be determined in accordance with Clause 6.4.6 of the Agreement as brought into effect with retrospective effect from 14.11.2003.

›
                                 REPORTABLE                         IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA                         CIVIL APPELLAT...