High Court of Delhi was dealing with the petition impugns award whereby the detailed accident report has been disposed of and compensation awarded.
Petitioner’s Contention:
Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the tribunal has erred in awarding compensation to respondent no. 2 and 3 who were children of the wife of the deceased from her first marriage. He submitted that they cannot be treated as dependant family members of the deceased. He further submitted that the tribunal has erred in taking the monthly salary of the deceased at Rs. 41,807/- whereas the claim of the wife of the deceased was that the salary only Rs. 35,000/- per month.
Respondent’s Contention:
learned counsel for respondent no. 1 to 3 that claimants 2 and 3 are children and were living with the deceased as such would be treated to be dependent upon him.
HC’s Observations and Held:
After hearing both the sides Court with regard to the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant stated that respondent no. 2 and 3 cannot be regarded as dependants, same will make no difference to the computation of compensation.
Court found that the deductions from the income of the deceased would be 1/3rd as the deceased was married. Tribunal has made deduction of 1/3rd from the income. So, there is no error in computation and it would not make any difference to the computation wither by taking respondent no. 2 and 3 as dependants or not.
Court while looking into the contention of learned counsel for the appellant that the tribunal has erred in taking the salary at Rs. 41,807/- instead of Rs. 35,000/-, stated that it does not have any merit for the reasons that the Court while computing compensation has to award fair and just compensation.
In so far as the grant of compensation under non pecuniary head is concerned, HC referred to the judgment of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai & Another, where the SC has held that “having regard to the condition of the Indian society, every legal representative who suffers on account of the death of a person due to a motor vehicle accident should have a remedy for realisation of compensation. In an Indian family brothers, sisters and brothers’ children and sometimes foster children live together and they are dependent upon the bread-winner of the family and if the bread-winner is killed on account of a motor vehicle accident, there is no justification to deny them compensation.”
HC also relied upon the case of N. Jayasree & Ors. Vs. Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Ltd., where the SC held that “the term ‘legal representative’ should be given a wider interpretation for the purpose of Chapter XII of MV Act and it should not be confined only to mean the spouse, parents and children of the deceased. The Motor Vehicle Act is a benevolent legislation enacted for the object of providing monetary relief to the victims or their families. Therefore, the Motor Vehicle Act calls for a liberal and wider interpretation to serve the real purpose underlying the enactment and fulfil its legislative intent.”
After referring various judgments Court found no infirmity in the impugned award and the computation of compensation by the tribunal.
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva
Case Title: United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Farida Sarosh Poonawala and Ors.
Case Details: MAC.APP. 19/2022& CM APPL. 4119/2022
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
