- (1.)This court, while granting leave by order dated 23.8.1996, limited the scope regarding question of restoring the amount of compensation granted initially by the Tribunal.
(2.)The husband of the appellant No. 1 and the father of the appellant No. 2 died in an accident which took place on 15.6.87. He was employed as an Assistant Engineer in the Tamil Nadu Water and Drainage board's Research Office of the General sanitary Engineering Department, Tirunelveli. The appellants claimed a sum of rs. 15,00,000 as compensation for the death of their breadwinner. In support of their claim, apart from furnishing the salary certificate and other documents to show future increase in the salary and other things, the appellants filed two Exhs. P-7 and P-8 to show that the deceased Had a confirmed foreign assignment which would fetch not less than Rs. 36,000 a month at that time. These two documents were noticed both by the trial court and by the high Court. The trial court, after noticing the foreign assignment the deceased had got from the United States, was of the view that if the' compensation has to be worked out on that basis, it would come to Rs. 36,00,000 and that amount being excessive, it may not be proper for it to grant such a huge amount. Otherwise, the tribunal has found those two documents as genuine and bona fide. The Tribunal, after assessing the pros and cons, awarded a sum of Rs. 7,50,000 towards compensation with interest at 12 per cent from the date of filing of the petition till the date of payment.
(3.)Aggrieved by the award of the Tribunal, both the respondent and the appellants preferred an appeal and cross-objections before the High Court. The Division Bench of the Madras High Court, while considering the appeal and cross-objections, found that the appellants had not established that, pursuant to the offer of the foreign assignment, any firm order was received. This is what the High Court has observed, which is as follows: "with regard to the foreign assignment, as spoken of by PW 1 on the basis of exhs. P-7 and P-8, we are in entire agreement with the conclusion of the tribunal. Exh. P-7 is dated 14.1.1987. It is highly doubtful that after receipt of an order for employment in a concern at U. S. A. , why the deceased had not taken any immediate steps for joining the foreign assignment. The only reason given by PW 1 was that in order to secure proper education for her daughter, her husband had to postpone his trip. Nothing prevented the wife to get a further letter or confirmation even after the death of her husband with regard to the foreign assignment from the said East- west Designs, Florida, U. S. A. , in order to strengthen her case. In the absence of clinching evidence to prove that there was an order for foreign employment, we are unable to accept the oral evidence of PW 1 in this regard. Hence, we are unable to accept the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the cross-objector for enhancement of the compensation. "