Allahabad High Court
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Smt. Rajni Kumari And Others on 30 May, 2012
Bench: Rajes Kumar, Anil Kumar Sharma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 30
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 2292 of 2012
Petitioner :- United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
Respondent :- Smt. Rajni Kumari And Others
Petitioner Counsel :- V.C. Dixit
Hon'ble Rajes Kumar,J.
Hon'ble Anil Kumar Sharma,J.
(Delivered by Hon. Anil Kumar Sharma, J.)
This is an insurer appeal challenging the award dated 27.02.2012 passed by M.A.C.T./Additional District Judge, Court No.6, Agra in M.A.C. no. 813 of 2010, whereby the compensation of Rs. 24,65,836/- have been awarded to Respondent Nos. 1 to 6 on account of death of 44 years' old army-man Ram Niwas.
It appears that on 6.9.2010 deceased Ram Niwas who was going from his Agra to Sachdeva Collge, Farah on his motor cycle and then Innova car registration no. DL 1YB-1528 hit him from behind, whereby he was seriously injured. He was taken to hospital, but he succumbed to injuries. The claimants alleged that deceased Ram Niwas was employed in 509 Army Workshop as Telecom Mechanic A-Grade and his monthly pay was Rs. 31,768/-. The claimants being the widow, parents and children of the deceased filed claim petition for compensation. The FIR of the accident was lodged by the father of the deceased in P.S. Farah against unknown driver of the aforesaid vehicle and the police after investigation submitted charge sheet against him. In support of the claim the claimants examined claimant no.1 Smt. Rajni Kumari as PW-1, eye witness Shri Niwas as PW-2, and S.K. Chakravarty as PW-3 to prove employment and income of the deceased and also filed several police papers, photo copy of the service book and pay slip of the deceased. The opposite parties did not examine any witness. The learned Tribunal after hearing the parties' counsel gave award as aforesaid.
We have heard learned counsel for the appellant at length and perused the impugned award and also the document filed by the appellant in support of appeal.
Learned counsel for the appellant has challenged the findings of the Tribunal with regard to contributory negligence of the driver of the car and deceased and has also assailed quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal to Respondent Nos. 1 to 6. He has submitted that widow of the deceased is getting family pension of Rs. 14,000/- but it has not been deducted from the income of the family He has relied upon the cases of Bhakra Beas Management Board vs. Kanta Agarwal and others, 2008 (3) TAC 661 (SC).
The claimants have relied upon the testimony of eye witness Shri Niwas PW 2 to prove the negligence of Innova car driver in the accident coupled with the FIR, site plan and charge sheet against the car driver. The testimony of Shri Niwas PW 2 could not shattered in the cross-examination and finds support from the FIR and other police papers. No evidence to the contrary has been led by either by the appellant or the owner of the car. The findings of the Tribunal on this score are based on evidence on record.
Now as regards quantum and deduction of family pension which the widow of the deceased is getting, in the facts of the case of Bhakra Beas Management Board (supra) the widow of the deceased got compassionate appointment on monthly salary of Rs. 4700/- and was also provided residence immediately after the accident. The Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 8,48,160/-, which was not disturbed by the High Court. In appeal before Supreme Court under its direction the employer deposited Rs. 5,00,000/-. On these facts the Hon'ble Court making reference to the cases of United India Insurance Company Ltd. and others vs. Patricia Jean Mahajan and others, (2002) (6) SCC 281, Gobald Motors Service Limited and others vs. R.M.K. Veluswami and others, 1962 (1) S.C.R. 929 and Helen C. Rebello vs. Maharashtra S.R.T.C., 1999 (1) SCC 90 has observed that High Court lost sight of the fact that the benefit which on account of death or injury have to be duly considered while fixing the compensation. In the background facts of the case the Hon'ble Court found it just and proper that sum of Rs. 5 lakhs already deposited shall be permitted to be withdrawn by the claimants in full and final settlement of the claim relatable to the death of the deceased. In the facts of the case the Hon'ble Court has only directed that the benefits being received by the claimant on account of death or injury should be duly considered. However, in the facts on the instant case we find that the learned Tribunal has considered the above facts regarding family pension which is being paid to the widow of the deceased, as it has lowered the multiplier for computing the compensation by 4-times. The deceased was between age group above 40-45 years and for this age group multiplier of '15' had been prescribed in the 2nd Schedule of Motor Vehicles Act, but the Tribunal taking multiplier of '11' has carved out the amount of compensation payable to the claimants. Moreover, it is important to note the observations of the Apex Court given in the case of Helen C. Rebello (supra). Hon'ble Court has observed that 'family pension is also earned by an employee for the benefit of his family in the form of his contribution in service in terms of the service conditions receivable by the heirs after his death. The heirs receive family pension even otherwise than the accidental death. No co-relation between the two.' It is further held that though it is pecuniary advantage receivable by the heirs on account of one's death but it has no co-relation with the amount receivable under the statute occasioned only on account of accidental death. Such an amount cannot come within periphery of the Motor Vehicles Act to be termed as 'pecuniary advantage' liable to deduct. Similarly in the case of Smt. Sarla Dixit and another vs. Balwant Yadav and others (Civil Appeal No. 5157/1992 decided on February 29, 1996 the Apex Court did not approve the deduction on account of family pension in working out compensation. A division bench of this Court in the case of Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Smt. Urmila Devi and others, 2009(7) ADJ 575 (DB) repelling the argument advanced on behalf of the appellant did not give any benefit to the insurance company about family pension and engagement of the wife of the deceased in employment. Moreover the full Benches of Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Bhagat Singh Sohan Singh vs. Smt. Om Sharma and others, AIR 1983 Punjab & Haryana 94, the Madhya Pradesh High Court (Indore Bench) in the case of Smt. Kashmiran Mathur and others vs. Sardar Rajendra Singh and another, AIR 1983 Madhya Pradesh 24 and Karnataka High Court in the case of Smt. Parwati @ Baby and others vs. Hollur Hallappa and others, 1998 (1) TAC 14 (Karnataka) have taken similar view. Thus in our opinion the family pension being drawn by the widow of the deceased is not liable to be deducted from the amount of compensation awarded to the claimants. However, the Tribunal has already lowered the multiplier in computing compensation, we are not inclined to disturb this finding.
In view of what has been said and done above, we do not find any merit in the appeal which is accordingly dismissed. The statutory deposit of Rs. 25,000/- made before this Court be remitted back to the concerned Tribunal as expeditiously as possible.
Order Date :- 30.5.2012
Imroz
