Not Only Govt. Servants, Individuals With Periodic Salary Increases Or Annual Increments Are Also Considered In "Permanent Jobs": Madhya Pradesh HC
|The Madhya Pradesh High Court increased the compensation awarded by the Tribunal in a Motor Vehicles claim case, citing the Supreme Court's observation that individuals with periodic salary increases or annual increments are considered in "Permanent Jobs," not just government servants.
The Court was hearing an appeal filed by the claimants/appellants under Section 173 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award passed in the Claim Case seeking enhancement of compensation.
The bench of Justice Achal Kumar Paliwal relied on the principle of law laid down by the Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi, AIR 2017 SC 5157 and said, “….if a person is in such a job wherein his salary is increased periodically/receives annual increment etc., then, such person would be treated as being in “ permanent job”. Hence, in view of principle of law laid down in Pranay Sethi (Supra), it is not correct that only government servant would be treated as being in “permanent job”.
Advocate R.P. Mishra appeared for the Appellant and Advocate Gulab Chand Sohane appeared for the Respondent.
Brief Facts-
It is the case of the Appellants that the deceased had a permanent job, warranting a 15% addition for future prospects, but the tribunal only added 10%. Furthermore, the tribunal awarded consortium compensation solely to appellant No. 1, neglecting appellants No. 2 to 4. Therefore, they request a suitable enhancement of the compensation awarded by the tribunal.
The Court noted that the deceased was working as an Assistant Professor at the Corporate Institute of Science and Technology, Bhopal. Thus, admittedly, the deceased was not in a government job.
To answer the question of whether only government servants can be treated as being in a “permanent job” for the purpose of grant/award of prospects the Court relied on the Supreme Court decision in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi, AIR 2017 SC 5157 and quoted, “…We are inclined to think that there can be some degree of difference as regards the percentage that is meant for or applied to in respect of the legal representatives who claim on behalf of the deceased who had a permanent job than a person who is self-employed or on a fixed salary.”
Accordingly, the Court said that in the instant case, the tribunal erred in adding 10% as future prospects and added 15% as future prospects.
Finally, the Court partly allowed the Appeal.
Cause Title: Anjum Ansari v. R. Rajesh Rao