Jammu & Kashmir High Court
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs Balbir Kour Wd/O Babu Ram R/O on 2 December, 2023
Author: Rajnesh Oswal
Bench: Rajnesh Oswal
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU, KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
Mac App No. 110/2021(O&M) Reserved on : 22.11.2023
Pronounced on:. 02.12.2023
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. .....Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s)
TP Hub, Aquaf Complex, Gandhi
Nagar, Jammu
Through its Manager, S. H. S.
Dhaliwal, Age 56 years
Through: Mr. Amrit Sarin, Adv.
Vs
1. Balbir Kour Wd/o Babu Ram R/o ..... Respondent(s)
Near Brick Kiln, Rajpur Satwari,
Jammu.
2. Gurdeep Singh S/o Late Babu Ram
Both R/o Near Brick Kiln, Rajpur
Satwari, Jammu
3. Parmeet Kour D/o Late Babu Ram
W/o. Gurdeep Singh R/o. Near
Patrol Pump, Rajpur Satwari,
Jammu
4. Advance Transport Service, 45,
Transport Nagar, Jammu th. its
proprietor
5. Daljeet Singh S/o. Not known
R/o. Chopra Shop Udhampur
Through: Mr. Ajay Vaid, Adv.
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE
JUDGEMENT
1. This appeal is directed against the award dated 23.08.2021 passed by the
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jammu (for short „the Tribunal‟) in file
No. 299/Claim, titled, "Balbir Kour and others vs New India Assurance Co.
Ltd and others", whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded the
compensation for an amount of Rs. 11,52,500/- in favour of the respondent
Nos. 1 to 3 alongwith interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date
of institution of this claim petition till realization of the award amount.
2. The award has been impugned by the appellant/Insurance Company on the
ground that the deceased had retired from the Border Security Force as a
Sub-Inspector and after his demise, the family pension received by
respondent No. 1 was more than what the deceased used to draw and as
such, there was no pecuniary loss to respondent No. 1. It is also stated that
respondent Nos. 1 to 3 had miserably failed to place on record the proof of
employment of the deceased with the GVR Infra Projects Co. Ltd and as
such, the income of the deceased allegedly earned as salary form M/S GVR
Infra Projects Co. Ltd could not have been considered while passing the
award impugned.
3. Mr. Amrit Sarin, learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company has
vehemently argued that the respondent No. 1 was getting more amount as
pension than what was being paid to her by her deceased-husband and the
respondent Nos. 1 to 3 could not prove the salary which the deceased was
getting from GVR Infra Projects Co. Ltd, as such, the learned Tribunal has
not rightly determined the compensation.
4. On the contrary, Mr. Ajay Vaid, learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 3
has vehemently argued that the compensation has been rightly determined
by the learned Tribunal, as such, no interference is warranted.
5. Heard and perused the record.
6. A perusal of the record reveals that the respondent No. 1-wife of the
deceased-Babu Singh, Gurdeep Singh-son of Babu Singh and Parmeet
Kour daughter of Babu Singh filed a claim petition on account of death of
Babu Singh in a vehicular accident on 29.05.2014. It was pleaded in the
claim petition that the deceased after his retirement from Border Security
Force, was serving with GVR Infra Projects Co. Ltd and getting Rs.
20,000/- per month as salary. The appellant and respondent Nos. 4 and 5
were put to notice. The appellant/Insurance Company opposed the claim
petition on the ground that the vehicle was being driven in contravention of
the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy, whereas respondent Nos.
4 and 5 filed their response thereby stating that the vehicle was insured
with the appellant and exaggerated claim have been made by respondent
Nos. 1 to 3.
7. After framing the issues, the learned Tribunal directed the parties to lead
evidence. The respondent Nos. 1 to 3 besides examining respondent No.2,
have examined PWs Manjeet Singh and Gurdeep Singh in support of their
claim, whereas the appellant did not examine any witness in rebuttal to the
evidence led by the respondents 1 to 3.
8. The learned Tribunal after taking into consideration the statement of PW
Manjeet Singh, has awarded an amount of Rs. 10,02,500/-to the respondent
Nos.1 to 3 on account of loss of dependency, though intended award to the
respondent No. 1 only. Further, a sum of Rs. 15,000/- each on account of
„Funeral expenses‟&„Loss of Estate‟ and Rs. 40,000/- each on account of
„Loss of Consortium‟ have been granted to the respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
9. It is contended by the appellant/Insurance Company that the learned
Tribunal was not right in its approach in granting compensation to the
respondent No. 1 on account of loss of dependency, particularly when she
was getting the family pension. It has come in the evidence of respondent
No. 2 that the respondent No. 1 was getting Rs. 16,000/ to 17,000/ per
month as pension.
10. The contention of the appellant that once the respondent No. 1 was getting
a family pension, no compensation could have been granted to respondent
No. 1, is misconceived as the compensation payable under the Motor
Vehicle Act is in respect of the pecuniary loss on account of injury or death
caused due to vehicular accident. The respondent No.1 would otherwise
have been entitled to pension in case of death of her husband even for the
reasons other than death in the vehicular accident. Reliance is placed upon
the judgment of the Apex Court in "Mrs. Helen C. Rebello and ors. v
Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and Anr., (1999) 1
SCC 90.
11. The other contention raised by the appellant is that there was no proof in
respect of the earning of the deceased from the GVR Infra Projects Co. Ltd.
The respondent Nos. 1 to 3 have examined PW Manjeet Singh, who has
proved that the deceased was working with GVR Infra Projects Co. Ltd.
and his monthly emoluments were Rs. 20,000/-.
12. The learned Tribunal has rightly considered the monthly income of the
deceased as Rs. 33,412, which includes Rs. 13,412/- as pension and Rs.
20,000/- as salary from GVR Infra Projects Co. Ltd. Further the learned
Tribunal has rightly held that the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were not
dependent upon the deceased and after making deduction of 50% on
account of personal expenses, the loss of dependency has been determined
to be Rs. 10,02,500/- which is in consonance with law but the same shall be
payable only to the respondent No.1.
13. No other issue was either urged or raised. The appeal is found to be without
merit and the same is dismissed. It is clarified that the compensation under
the head of "Loss of dependency" shall be payable to the respondent No.1
only. The award amount be released in favour of the claimants/respondents
as observed herein above.
(RAJNESH OSWAL)
JUDGE
Jammu
02.12.2023
Rakesh PS
Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No
Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No
