Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur
Priyanka And Others vs Swarn Singh And Others … on 16 April, 2026
[2026:RJ-JP:15844]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 6406/2011
1. Priyanka W/o Raja Ram Meena, aged 33 years.
2. Devesh S/o Raja Ram Meena, aged 14 years
3. Rahul S/o Raja Ram Meena, aged 12 years.
4. Shri Ram Charan Meena S/o Dhudiya, aged 55 years
5. Smt. Rukmani W/o Ram Charan, aged 53 years.
Appellant Nos.4 and 5 resident of Village and Post, Nadoti.
Claimants----Appellants
Versus
1. Swarn Singh S/o Kartar Singh, R/o House No.202, Mohalla
Kharkhari, Tehsil Narnaul, Thana Narnaul, District
Mahendragarh, Haryana (Driver-Owner)
2. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., having its Regional Office at
Nehru Place, Tonk Road, Jaipur through its Regional Manager.
Non Claimants----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Vinay Mathur
Ms. Vinita Saini
Mr. Aashish Mittal
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Tripurari Sharma with
Mr. Bhpendra Singh, for National
Insurance Co.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP TANEJA
Judgment
16/04/2026
1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellants-
claimants (hereinafter referred to as ‘claimants’) under Section
173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and
award dated 24.06.2011 passed by the learned Additional District
& Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.6, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur
and the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Jaipur City, Jaipur in MAC
Case No. 343/2008 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’) by which
the claim petition filed by the claimants was partly allowed.
(Uploaded on 18/04/2026 at 01:34:45 PM)
(Downloaded on 23/04/2026 at 10:10:53 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:15844] (2 of 13) [CMA-6406/2011]
2. The brief facts of the case are that on 19.04.2006, Rajaram
Meena, along with other persons, was travelling in a taxi bearing
registration No.RJ14-T-5955 from Police Station Shipra Path
towards Bundi. At about 2:30PM, when the taxi reached near
Niwai Bypass, a truck bearing registration No. HR66-1775, being
driven by Respondent No. 1, came from the Tonk side at a high
speed and in a rash and negligent manner. The driver of the truck
lost control over the vehicle, as a result of which it came onto the
wrong side of the road and collided with the taxi. Due to the said
accident, the occupants of the taxi sustained serious injuries and
later on, Rajaram Meena succumbed to death.
3. It was also alleged that at the time of accident, the age of
the deceased was 34 years and he was working as Police
Constable with Rajasthan Police and was drawing a salary of
Rs.8,900/- per month.
4. The learned Tribunal, vide impugned judgment and award,
partly allowed the claim petition and awarded total compensation
of Rs.15,73,100/- in favour of the claimants, alongwith interest @
6% per annum.
5. Being dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award,
the present appeal has been preferred by the claimants seeking
enhancement of compensation so awarded.
6. Learned counsel for the claimants submits that the deceased
was working as Police Constable at Police Station Shipra Path and
was drawing a salary of Rs.8,900/- per month which was duly
proved by the salary certificate issued from the Office of Police
Superintendent, Head Office, Jaipur City, Jaipur, which was
(Uploaded on 18/04/2026 at 01:34:45 PM)
(Downloaded on 23/04/2026 at 10:10:53 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:15844] (3 of 13) [CMA-6406/2011]
produced by the claimants before the learned Tribunal, marked as
Exhibit-6.
6.1 He further submits that the Tribunal while calculating the
monthly income of the deceased for the purpose of determining
compensation towards loss of dependency erred in taking into
consideration only the basic pay, Dearness Pay (DP) and Dearness
Allowance (DA) payable to the deceased and deducting the
amount of Higher Duties Allowance (HDA), City Compensatory
Allowance (CCA), House Rent Allowance (HRA), washing allowance
and misc. allowances. He also submits that the above allowances
are required to be taken into consideration for the purpose of
calculation of loss of dependency.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents –
Insurance Company opposes the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the claimants and submits that the award passed by
the learned Tribunal is just and fair and, therefore, no interference
is required by this Court.
8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record.
9. The only issue for consideration is whether the learned
Tribunal was justified in excluding the amount which was being
paid to the deceased towards the Higher Duties Allowance (HDA),
City Compensatory Allowance (CCA), House Rent Allowance
(HRA), washing allowance and misc. allowance.
9.1 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National
Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Indra Srivastava & Ors.,
(Uploaded on 18/04/2026 at 01:34:45 PM)
(Downloaded on 23/04/2026 at 10:10:53 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:15844] (4 of 13) [CMA-6406/2011]
reported in AIR (2008) SC 845, while dealing with concept of
income held as under:-
“8. 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 monitory terms.
9. Section 168 of the Act uses the word ‘just
compensation’ which, in our opinion, should be assigned a
broad meaning. We cannot, in determining the issue
involved in the matter, lose 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, in
our opinion, 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.
For the aforementioned purpose, we may notice the
elements of pay, paid to the deceased:
Basic 63,400.00
Conveyance Allowance 12,000.00
Rent Co Lease 49,200.00
Bonus (35% of Basic) 21,840.00
Total 1,45,440.00
In addition to above, his other entitlements were:
Con. to PF 10% Basic Rs.6,240/-(p.a.)
LTA reimbursement Rs.7,000/-(p.a.)
Medical reimbursement Rs.6,000/-(p.a.)
Superannuation 15% of Rs.9,360/-(p.a.)
Basic
Gratuity Cont. 5.34% of Rs. 3,332/- (p.a.)
Basic
Medical Policy-self & Rs.55,000/- (p.a.)
Family @
Education Scholarship @ Rs. 12,000/- (p.a.)
Rs.500
Payable to his two
children Directly
10. There are three basic features in the aforementioned
statement which require our consideration:
(Uploaded on 18/04/2026 at 01:34:45 PM)
(Downloaded on 23/04/2026 at 10:10:53 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:15844] (5 of 13) [CMA-6406/2011]
1. Reimbursement of rent would be equivalent to
HRA;
2. Bonus is payable as a part of salary; and
3. Contribution to the Provident Fund.
11. We may furthermore notice that apart therefrom,
superannuation benefits, contributions towards gratuity,
insurance of medical policy for self and family and
education scholarship were beneficial to the members of
the family.
12. We have, however, no doubt in mind that medical
reimbursement which provides for a slab and which
keeping in view the terminology used, would mean
reimbursement for medical expenses on production of
medical bills and, thus, the same would not come within
the purview of the aforementioned category.
13. The question came for consideration before a learned
Single Judge of the Madras High Court in The Manager,
National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Padmavathy and Ors.
CMA No. 114 of 2006 decided on 29.1.2007, wherein it
was held:
“Income tax, Professional tax which are
deducted from the salaried person goes to the
coffers of the government under specific head
and there is no return. Whereas, the General
Provident Fund, Special Provident Fund, L.I.C.,
Contribution are amounts paid specific heads
and the contribution is always repayable to an
employee at the time of voluntary retirement,
death or for any other reason. Such contribution
made by the salaried person are deferred
payments and they are savings. The Supreme
Court as well as various High Courts have held
that the compensation payable under the Motor
Vehicles Act is statutory and that the deferred
payments made to the employee are
contractual. Courts have held that there cannot
be any deductions in the statutory
compensation, if the Legal Representatives are
entitled to lumpsum payment under the
contractual liability. If the contributions made
by the employee which are otherwise savings
from the salary are deducted from the gross
income and only the net income is taken for
computing the dependency compensation, then
the Legal Representatives of the victim would
lose considerable portion of the income. In view
of the settled proposition of law, I am of the
view, the Tribunal can make only statutory
deductions such as Income tax and professional
tax and any other contribution, which is not
repayable by the employer, from the salary of
the deceased person while determining the
monthly income for computing the dependency
compensation. Any contribution made by the(Uploaded on 18/04/2026 at 01:34:45 PM)
(Downloaded on 23/04/2026 at 10:10:53 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:15844] (6 of 13) [CMA-6406/2011]employee during his life time, form part of the
salary and they should be included in the
monthly income, while computing the
dependency compensation.”
14. Similar view was expressed by a learned Single Judge
of Andhra Pradesh High Court in S. Narayanamma and
Ors. v. Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of
Telecommunications and Ors. 2002 ACC 582, holding :
“In this background, now we will examine
the present deductions made by the tribunal
from the salary of the deceased in fixing the
monthly contribution of the deceased to his
family. The tribunal has not even taken proper
care while deducting the amounts from the
salary of the deceased, at least the very nature
of deductions from the salary of the deceased.
My view is that the deductions made by the
tribunal from the salary such as recovery of
housing loan, vehicle loan, festival advance and
other deductions, if any, to the benefit of the
estate of the deceased cannot be deducted
while computing the net monthly earnings of
the deceased. These advances or loans are part
of his salary. So far as House Rent Allowance is
concerned, it is beneficial to the entire family of
the deceased during his tenure, but for his
untimely death the claimants are deprived of
such benefit which they would have enjoyed if
the deceased is alive. On the other hand,
allowances, like Travelling Allowance, allowance
for newspapers/periodicals, telephone, servant,
club-fee, car maintenance etc., by virtue of his
vocation need not be included in the salary
while computing the net earnings of the
deceased. The finding of the tribunal that the
deceased was getting Rs.1,401/- as net income
every month is unsustainable as the deductions
made towards vehicle loan and other deductions
were also taken into consideration while fixing
the monthly income of the deceased. The above
finding of the tribunal is contrary to the
principle of ‘just compensation’ enunciated by
the Supreme Court in the judgment in Helen’s
case (1 supra). The Supreme Court in Concord
of India Insurance Co. v. Nirmaladevi and Ors.
1980 ACJ 55 (SC) held that determination of
quantum must be liberal and not niggardly since
law values life and limb in a free country ‘in
generous scales’.”
15. We may, however, notice that a Division Bench of this
Court in Asha and Ors. v. United Indian Insurance Co. Ltd.
and Anr. [2004 ACC 533], whereupon reliance has been
placed by Mr. Satija, was considering a case where, like
(Uploaded on 18/04/2026 at 01:34:45 PM)
(Downloaded on 23/04/2026 at 10:10:53 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:15844] (7 of 13) [CMA-6406/2011]
the present one, several perks were included in salary. We
may reproduce the salary certificate hereto below:
“This is to certify that Shri A.M. Raikar
was working as AG 111 in this organisation has
been paid the following Pay & Allowances for
the month of May, 1995:
Earnings Amount Deductions Amount
Basic 3420.00 CPF (S) 488.00
Special Pay 70.00 CPF (Add)
FDA 350.00 GIS 3.75
VDA 1040.00 LIC/GIS 509.10
CCA 100.00 HRA
HRA 1047.00 MSPI 60.00
Washing All. 75.00 Society 576.00
Conv. 225.00 Union 3.00
Cant. Sub. 265.00 HBA 340.00
C.E.A. 2040.00 B. Fund 10.00
Total 8632.00 Total 1989.85
Net payable Rs.6642.00 (Rupees six thousand
six hundred forty two only).”
In that case, this Court held :
“Lastly it was submitted that the salary
certificate shows that the salary of the deceased
was Rs.8,632/-. It was submitted that the High
Court was wrong in taking the salary to be
Rs.6,642/-. It was submitted that the High
Court was wrong in deducting the allowances
and amounts paid towards LIC, Society charges
and HBA etc. We are unable to accept this
submission also. The claimants are entitled to
be compensated for the loss suffered by them.
The loss suffered by them is the amount which
they would have been receiving at the time
when the deceased was alive. There can be no
doubt that the dependents would only be
receiving the net amount less l/3rd for his
personal expenses. The High Court was
therefore right in so holding.”
This Court in Asha (supra) did not address itself the
questions raised before us. It does not appear that any
precedent was noticed nor the term ‘just compensation’
was considered in the light of the changing societal
condition as also the perks which are paid to the
employee which may or may not attract income tax or any
other tax.
What would be ‘just compensation’ must be determined
having regard to the facts and circumstances of each
case. The basis for considering the entire pay packet is
what the dependents have lost due to death of the
deceased. It is in the nature of compensation for future
loss towards the family income.
(Uploaded on 18/04/2026 at 01:34:45 PM)
(Downloaded on 23/04/2026 at 10:10:53 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:15844] (8 of 13) [CMA-6406/2011]
16. In Rathi Menon v. Union of India [2001] 2 SCR 365,
this Court, upon considering the dictionary meaning of
compensation held :
“In this context a reference to Section 129 of
the Act appears useful. The Central Government
is empowered by the said provision to make
rules by notification “to carry out the purposes
of this Chapter”. It is evident that one of the
purposes of this chapter is that the injured
victims in railway accidents and untoward
incidents must get compensation. Though the
word “compensation” is not defined in the Act
or in the Rules it is the giving of an equivalent
or substitute of equivalent value. In Black’s Law
Dictionary, “compensation” is shown as
“equivalent in money for a loss sustained;
or giving back an equivalent in either
money which is but the measure of value,
or in actual value otherwise conferred; or
recompense in value for some loss, injury
or service especially when it is given by
statute.”
It means when you pay the compensation in
terms of money it must represent, on the date
of ordering such payment, the equivalent value.
25. In this context we may look at Section
128(1) also. It says that the right of any person
to claim compensation before the Claims
Tribunal as indicated in Section 124 or 124-A
shall not affect the right of any such person to
recover compensation payable under any other
law for the time being in force. But there is an
interdict that no person shall be entitled to
claim compensation for more than once in
respect of the same accident. This means that
the party has two alternatives, one is to avail
himself of his civil remedy to claim
compensation based on common law or any
other statutory provision, and the other is to
apply before the Claims Tribunal under Section
124 or 124-A of the Act. As he cannot avail
himself of both the remedies he has to choose
one between the two. The provisions in Chapter
XIII of the Act are intended to provide a
speedier remedy to the victims of accidents and
untoward incidents. If he were to choose the
latter that does not mean that he should be
prepared to get a lesser amount. He is given
the assurance by the legislature that the Central
Government is saddled with the task of
prescribing fair and just compensation in the
Rules from time to time. The provisions are not
intended to give a gain to the Railway
Administration but they are meant to afford just
and reasonable compensation to the victims as
(Uploaded on 18/04/2026 at 01:34:45 PM)
(Downloaded on 23/04/2026 at 10:10:53 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:15844] (9 of 13) [CMA-6406/2011]
a speedier measure. If a person files a suit the
amount of compensation will depend upon what
the court considers just and reasonable on the
date of determination. Hence when he goes
before the Claims Tribunal claiming
compensation the determination of the amount
should be as on the date of such
determination.”
17. 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. We may, however,
hasten to add that from the said amount of income, the
statutory amount of tax payable thereupon must be
deducted.
18. The term ‘income’ in P. Ramanatha Aiyar’s Advanced
Law Lexicon (3rd Ed.) has been defined as under :
“The value of any benefit or perquisite whether
convertible into money or not, obtained from a
company either by a director or a person who has
substantial interest in the company, and any sum
paid by such company in respect of any obligation,
which but for such payment would have been
payable by the director or other person aforesaid,
occurring or arising to a person within the State from
any profession, trade or calling other than
agriculture.”
It has also been stated :
“INCOME’ signifies ‘what comes in’ (per Selborne, C.,
Jones v. Ogle 42 LJ Ch.336. ‘It is as large a word as
can be used’ to denote a person’s receipts ‘(per
Jessel, M.R. Re Huggins 51 LJ Ch.938. income is not
confined to receipts from business only and means
periodical receipts from one’s work, lands,
investments, etc. AIR 1921Mad 427 (SB). Ref.
124 IC 511 : 1930 MWN 29 : 31 MLW 438
AIR1930 Mad 626 : 58 MLJ 337.”
19. If the dictionary meaning of the word ‘income’ is taken
to its logical conclusion, it should include those benefits,
either in terms of money or otherwise, which are taken
into consideration for the purpose of payment of income-
tax or profession tax although some elements thereof may
or may not be taxable or would have been otherwise
taxable but for the exemption conferred thereupon under
the statute.
20. In N. Sivammal and Ors. v. Managing Director,
Pandian Roadways Corporation and Ors., (1985) 1 SCC
18, this Court took into consideration the pay packet of
the deceased.
(Uploaded on 18/04/2026 at 01:34:45 PM)
(Downloaded on 23/04/2026 at 10:10:53 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:15844] (10 of 13) [CMA-6406/2011]
21. We may notice that in T.N. State Transport
Corporation Ltd. v. S. Rajapriya and Ors., (2005) 6 SCC
236, this Court held:
“8. The assessment of damages to compensate
the dependants is beset with difficulties because
from the nature of things, it has to take into
account many imponderables e.g. the life
expectancy of the deceased and the
dependants, the amount that the deceased
would have earned during the remainder of his
life, the amount that he would have contributed
to the dependants during that period, the
chances that the deceased may not have lived
or the dependants may not live up to the
estimated remaining period of their life
expectancy, the chances that the deceased
might have got better employment or income or
might have lost his employment or income
together.
9. The manner of arriving at the damages is to
ascertain the net income of the deceased
available for the support of himself and his
dependants, and to deduct therefrom such part
of his income as the deceased was accustomed
to spend upon himself, as regards both self-
maintenance and pleasure, and to ascertain
what part of his net income the deceased was
accustomed to spend for the benefit of the
dependants. Then that should be capitalised by
multiplying it by a figure representing the
proper number of years’ purchase.
10. Much of the calculation necessarily remains
in the realm of hypothesis “and in that region
arithmetic is a good servant but a bad master”
since there are so often many imponderables.
In every case “it is the overall picture that
matters”, and the court must try to assess as
best as it can the loss suffered.
22. Yet again in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Charlie
and Anr., (2005) 10 SCC 720, the same view was
reiterated. However, therein although the words ‘net
income’ has been used but the same itself would
ordinarily mean gross income minus the statutory
deductions. We must also notice that the said decision has
been followed in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Kalpana
(Smt.) and Ors., (2007) 3 SCC 538.
23. The expression ‘just’ must also be given its logical
meaning. Whereas it cannot be a bonanza or a source of
profit but in considering as to what would be just and
equitable, all facts and circumstances must be taken into
consideration.
24. In view of our finding abovementioned, the appeal is
to be allowed in part in so far as the High Court had
directed deduction of medical reimbursement and tax
(Uploaded on 18/04/2026 at 01:34:45 PM)
(Downloaded on 23/04/2026 at 10:10:53 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:15844] (11 of 13) [CMA-6406/2011]
elements on the entire sum which according to the statute
constitute income. But we decline to do so for two
reasons. Firstly, the accident had taken place as far back
as on 1st September, 1997 and secondly the Tribunal as
also the High Court failed to take into consideration rise in
income of the deceased by way of promotion or otherwise.
27. For the aforementioned reasons, we are not inclined
to interfere with the impugned judgment. This appeal is,
therefore, dismissed. In the facts and circumstances of
the case, there shall be no order as to costs.”
9.2 Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court again in the case of
Manorma Sinha and Anr. Vs. Divisional Manager, Oriental
Insurance Company Limited and Anr., reported in AIR 2025
SC 5036, has held as under:
“12. Now, the next question is whether allowances are to
be added to the salary for determining the multiplicand.
In National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Indira Srivastava and
Ors., (2008) 2 SCC 763, it was held that “the term income
has different connotations for different purposes. A court
of law, having regard to the change in societal conditions
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”. In Vijay Kumar Rastogi v.
Uttar Pradesh State Roadways Transport Corporation,
2018 SCC OnLine SC 193, a three-Judge Bench of this
Court noticing earlier decisions on the point observed that
“the income should include those benefits, either in terms
of money or otherwise, which are taken into consideration
for the purpose of payment of income tax or professional
tax, although some elements thereof may not be taxable
due to exemption conferred thereupon under the statute.”
Following the decision in Vijay Kumar Rastogi (supra) in
National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Nalini and Ors., 2024
SCC OnLine SC 2252, it was held by this Court that the
emoluments and the benefits accruing to the deceased
under various heads for the purposes of computation of
loss of income, ought to be included irrespective of
whether they are taxable or not. Thus, in our view, the
High Court erred in excluding the allowances from the
computation to arrive at the multiplicand. Hence, the total
monthly income was rightly computed by the Tribunal at
Rs. 53,367.”
9.3 In view of the law expounded by the Hon’ble Supreme Court,
this Court is of the view that the learned Tribunal was not justified
(Uploaded on 18/04/2026 at 01:34:45 PM)
(Downloaded on 23/04/2026 at 10:10:53 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:15844] (12 of 13) [CMA-6406/2011]
in deducting the amount from the monthly salary of the deceased
which was being paid to him towards Higher Duties Allowance
(HDA), City Compensatory Allowance (CCA), House Rent
Allowance (HRA), washing allowance, other misc. allowances.
Therefore, the above allowances would be part of the income of
the deceased, for the purpose of calculating the compensation
towards loss of dependency.
10. Accordingly, the monthly income of the deceased is
determined as Rs.8,900/-. Since, at the time of accident, the age
of the deceased was 34 years, therefore, multiplier of 16 will be
applicable.
11. Accordingly, the compensation payable to the claimants is
re-computed as under:-
S.No. Particular Amount assessed
1. Monthly Income Rs.8,900/-
2. Annual Income Rs.1,06,800/- (Rs.8900 x 12)
3. Add 50% towards future Rs.1,06,800 + Rs.53,400
prospects (+)
=Rs.1,60,200/-
4. According to the age of Rs.1,60,200/- x 16
the deceased i.e. 34 =Rs.25,63,200/-
years, multiplier 16 to be
applied
5. As per dependency, 1/4th
income to be deduced for Rs.25,63,200 - Rs.6,40,800
personal expenses of the =Rs.19,22,400/-
deceased (-)
6. Loss of consortium Rs.40,000/- x 5
(five dependants) = Rs.2,00,000/-
7. Loss of estate Rs.15,000/-
8. Funeral Expenses Rs.15,000/-
Total compensation Rs.21,52,400/-
(S.No.5+6+7+8)
Less amount awarded by Rs.15,73,100/-
the Tribunal (-)
Enhanced amount of Rs. 5,79,300/-
compensation
(Uploaded on 18/04/2026 at 01:34:45 PM)
(Downloaded on 23/04/2026 at 10:10:53 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:15844] (13 of 13) [CMA-6406/2011]
12. Hence, the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is
enhanced by Rs.5,79,300/-. The rest of the impugned award
shall remain intact. The respondents are directed to deposit the
enhanced amount within a period of two months from today.
13. It is directed that the enhanced amount shall carry the rate
of interest in terms of the award passed by the learned Tribunal,
from the date of filing of the claim petition. The enhanced amount
shall be disbursed in terms of the award passed by the learned
Tribunal.
14. The present appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
15. All pending applications, if any, also stands disposed of.
16. Office is directed to send back the record of the case to the
concerned Tribunal forthwith.
(SANDEEP TANEJA),J
22 – RAVI KHANDELWAL
(Uploaded on 18/04/2026 at 01:34:45 PM)
(Downloaded on 23/04/2026 at 10:10:53 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)