Jharkhand High Court Adds Overtime To Deceased Security Guard's Income For Motor Accident Compensation Despite Salary Slip Not Showing It
The Jharkhand HC has held that some limited estimation of additional income from overtime can be made while calculating motor accident compensation, even where the deceased's salary certificate does not record any overtime payment, taking into account the evidence of extra work and the number of dependants left behind.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice M.S. Sonak was hearing an appeal filed by Tata AIG against the judgment and award dated 28.01.2025 passed by the District Judge-VII, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur in M.A.C.C. Case No. 173 of 2022. The deceased's salary certificate showed a last drawn salary of Rs.11,684 per month, which the Tribunal rounded off to Rs.11,700. The Tribunal, however, added another Rs.5,000 per month towards overtime while calculating his income.
The Insurance Company challenged this addition, pointing out that the salary certificate did not show any overtime payment, the co-worker examined as PW-2 had not spoken about overtime and even the employer had not been examined. The claimants relied on the deceased's wife's deposition that he earned an additional Rs.10,000 per month through overtime.
The High Court noted that although the salary certificate did not reflect overtime and PW-2 had not deposed about it, some addition was nevertheless justified. The Court observed:
“However, in these matters, since some limited guesswork or estimate is allowable, some addition is due based upon PW-1's statement that the deceased used to earn some amount by undertaking extra work. The Tribunal has also taken judicial notice that security guards usually work in shifts. This means that if a security guard works at night, he would have the entire day free. A security guard could therefore work and earn during this period.”
The Court also took into account that the deceased had left behind three minor children, his parents and his widow. It held:
“Considering that the deceased had left behind three minor children, parents and a widow, the inference that the deceased used to earn some additional amounts by working beyond his scheduled shift hours cannot be said to be completely unreasonable.”
At the same time, the Court considered the fact that the co-worker had not spoken about overtime. On an assessment of the evidence, it found that an additional income of Rs.2,300 per month could reasonably be inferred, fixing the deceased's monthly income at Rs.14,000 instead of the Rs.16,700 determined by the Tribunal.
Despite reducing the monthly income, the Court ultimately enhanced the total compensation from Rs.34,16,650 to Rs.35,37,000 after correcting the Tribunal's calculation on other components in accordance with the Supreme Court's decisions in Sarla Verma, Pranay Sethi and Magma General Insurance.
The compensation was directed to carry interest at 7.5% per annum from 02.09.2022, the date of filing of the claim petition, until payment.
The appeal was accordingly disposed of. The claimants were permitted to withdraw the amount already deposited, while Tata AIG was directed to deposit the balance enhanced amount within six weeks.
Appearance:
For the Appellant: Mr Niraj Nayan Mishra, Advocate
For the Claimants: Mr Amaresh Kumar, Advocate
For Resp. No.7: Mr Rahul Kumar, Advocate