[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Shriram General Insurance Company ... vs Nirmala Devi And Others on 18 December, 2025
FAO-5308-2019 (O&M) --1--
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
FAO-5308-2019 (O&M)
Reserved on: 04.12.2025
Pronounced on: 18.12.2025
Uploaded on:- 18.12.2025
SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. ....Appellant
Vs.
NIRAMALA DEVI AND OTHERS .....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA
Present: Mr. Punit Jain, Advocate
for the appellant.
Mr. J.P. Sharma, Advocate
for respondents No. 1 to 3.
******
HARKESH MANUJA, J.
1. The present appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company against the
Award dated 03.04.2019 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Narnaul
(hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal"), in MACT Petition No. 131 of 2017
dated 27.11.2017 filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter
referred to as "the Act"), whereby the claim petition of the claimants/respondents
No. 1 to 3 herein, was allowed and compensation of Rs. 29,47,366/- has been
awarded to them. The 3 claimants are the widow and 2 minor children of
deceased Braham Parkash.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the learned Tribunal on the basis of the
pleadings as well as oral and documentary evidence adduced before it concluded
1 of 7
FAO-5308-2019 (O&M) --2--
that Braham Parkash died due to injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicular
accident which took place on 23.08.2017 at about 11:15/11:30 a.m. due to rash
and negligent driving of truck bearing registration No. HR-38R-6917 (hereinafter
referred to as "the offending vehicle") by respondent No. 4. The offending
vehicle was owned by respondent No. 5 and insured by the appellant.
Accordingly, learned Tribunal awarded compensation in the following manner:-
S.No. Heads of Claim Amount (in Rs.)
1. Annual Income of Deceased Rs. 3,31,704/-
2. 15% Future Prospects Rs. 49,755/-
3. Net Income (3,31,704 + 49,755) Rs. 3,81,459/-
4. Deduction (1/3rd) Rs. 1,27,153/-
5. Total Income (3,81,459 - 1,27,153) Rs. 2,54,306/-
6. Multiplier (11) (2,54,306 x 11) Rs. 27,97,366/-
7. Funeral Expenses Rs. 15,000/-
8. Loss of Estate Rs. 15,000/-
9. Loss of consortium (40,000 x 3) Rs. 1,20,000/-
10. Total Compensation Rs. 29,47,366/-
ARGUMENTS
ON BEHALF OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT
3. Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company assailed the
impugned Award by contending that while computing the income of the
deceased, the learned Tribunal failed to take into consideration the fact that
respondent No. 1/widow of the deceased was receiving family pension after the
death of her husband. It was submitted that the amount of pension which the
widow was getting, need to be deducted while assessing the loss of dependency to
the claimants/respondents No. 1 to 3, thus the Award passed by the learned
Tribunal be set aside.
ON BEHALF OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENTS No. 1
TO 3.
2 of 7
FAO-5308-2019 (O&M) --3--
4. Learned counsel for the respondents No. 1 to 3/claimants vehemently
opposed the contentions advanced on behalf of the appellant/Insurance Company
and submitted that the impugned Award does not suffer from any illegality or
perversity warranting interference by this Hon'ble Court. It was contended that
the family pension being received by respondent No.1-widow of the deceased
was a statutory and independent benefit accruing to her on account of the service
rendered by the deceased during his lifetime and by any stretch of imagination
was not to be treated as a pecuniary advantage flowing from the accident so as to
be deducted while computing loss of dependency. Learned counsel further
submitted that it was well settled by a catena of judgments of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court that amounts received by the dependents by way of family
pension, provident fund, gratuity or other retiral benefits were not deductible
from the compensation payable under the Motor Vehicles Act, as such benefits
were having no co-relation with the wrongful act of the tortfeasor. It was,
therefore, argued that the plea raised by the appellant/Insurance Company was
misconceived and contrary to settled legal principles, and the learned Tribunal
thus rightly ignored the family pension while assessing the loss of dependency.
Consequently, it was prayed that the appeal being devoid of merit be dismissed
and the impugned Award be affirmed.
DISCUSSION
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper-book
of the case.
6. A perusal of the material available on record and the testimony of PW-4
Vikrant Singh, Clerk, Punjab National Bank and RW-1 Vikram Singh, Deputy
Manager, Punjab National Bank, transpires that the pension of the deceased was
3 of 7
FAO-5308-2019 (O&M) --4--
fixed as Rs. 27,642/- per month whereas, his family pension was fixed as Rs.
35,550/-. Even the claimant Nirmala Devi while making her statement confirmed
this fact which stands unrebutted during her cross-examination. Thus, the learned
Tribunal rightly assessed the pensionary income of the deceased as Rs. 27,642/-.
7. That takes us to the contention of the appellant/Insurance Company that
the amount of family pension which respondent No.1, the widow of the deceased
is drawing is eligible to be deducted while computing the loss of dependency of
the claimants. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Helen C. Rebello (Mrs) and Ors.
Vs. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation & Ors." reported as (1999)
1 SCC 90 has dealt with the issue as to whether the amounts received by the
deceased by way of provident fund, pension, life insurance policies or pecuniary
advantages received by the heirs on account of death of the deceased are laible to
be deducted from the compensation. The Court held that these pecuniary
advantages have no co-relation with the compensation receivable by the
dependents under Motor Vehicles Act. The relevant observations of the Supreme
Court are reproduced as under:-
"Broadly, we may examine the receipt of the provident fund which is a deferred
payment out of the contribution made by an employee during the tenure of his
service. Such employee or his heirs are entitled to receive this amount
irrespective of the accidental death. This amount is secured, is certain to be
received, while the amount under the Motor Vehicles Act is uncertain and is
receivable only on the happening of the event, viz., accident, which may not take
place at all. Similarly, family pension is also earned by an employee for the
benefit of his family in the form of his contribution in the 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. Similarly, life insurance policy is received either by the insured
or the heirs of the insured on account of the contract with the insurer, for which
insured contributes in the form of premium. It is receivable even by the insured,
if he lives till maturity after paying all the premiums, in the case of death insurer
4 of 7
FAO-5308-2019 (O&M) --5--
indemnifies to pay the sum to the heirs, again in terms of the contracts for the
premium paid. Again, this amount is receivable by the claimant not on account
of any accidental death but otherwise on insured's death. Death is only a step or
contingency in terms of the contract, to receive the amount. Similarly any cash,
bank balance, shares, fixed deposits, etc. though are all a pecuniary advantage
receivable by the heirs on account of one's death but all these have no co-
relation with the amount receivable under a statute occasioned only on account
of accidental death. How could such an amount come within the periphery of the
Motor Vehicles Act to be termed as 'pecuniary advantage' liable for deduction.
When we seek the principle of loss and gain, it has to be on similar and same
plane having nexus inter se between them and not to which, there is no
semblance of any co-relation. The insured (deceased) contributes his own money
for which he receives the amount has no co-relation to the compensation
computed as against tortfeasor for his negligence on account of accident. As
aforesaid, the amount receivable as compensation under the Act is on account of
the injury or death without making any contribution towards it, then how can
fruits of an amount received through contributions of the insured be deducted
out of the amount receivable under the Motor Vehicles Act. The amount under
this Act, he receives without any contribution. As we have said the compensation
payable under the Motor Vehicles Act is statutory while the amount receivable
under the life insurance policy is contractual."
8. Furthermore, in the case of "Sebastiani Lakra & Ors. Vs. National
Insurance Company Ltd. and anr." reported as (2019) 17 SCC 465, the Hon'ble
Apex Court, after taking note of its earlier precedents on this issue, observed as
under:-
"12. The law is well settled that deductions cannot be allowed from
the amount of compensation either on account of insurance, or on
account of pensionary benefits or gratuity or grant of employment to
a kin of the deceased. The main reason is that all these amounts are
earned by the deceased on account of contractual relations entered
into by him with others. It cannot be said that these amounts accrued
to the dependents or the legal heirs of the deceased on account of his
death in a motor vehicle accident. The claimants/dependents are
entitled to `just compensation' under the Motor Vehicles Act as a
result of the death of the deceased in a motor vehicle accident.
Therefore, the natural corollary is that the advantage which accrues
to the estate of the deceased or to his dependents as a result of some
contract or act which the deceased performed in his life time cannot
be said to be the outcome or result of the death of the deceased even
5 of 7
FAO-5308-2019 (O&M) --6--
though these amounts may go into the hands of the dependents only
after his death.
13. As far as any amount paid under any insurance policy is
concerned whatever is added to the estate of the deceased or his
dependents is not because of the death of the deceased but because
of the contract entered into between the deceased and the insurance
company from where he took out the policy. The deceased paid
premium on such life insurance and this amount would have accrued
to the estate of the deceased either on maturity of the policy or on his
death, whatever be the manner of his death. These amounts are paid
because the deceased has wisely invested his savings. Similar would
be the position in case of other investments like bank deposits, share,
debentures etc.. The tortfeasor cannot take advantage of the
foresight and wise financial investments made by the deceased.
14. As far as the amounts of pension and gratuity are concerned,
these are paid on account of the service rendered by the deceased to
his employer. It is now an established principle of service
jurisprudence that pension and gratuity are the property of the
deceased. They are more in the nature of deferred wages. The
deceased employee works throughout his life expecting that on his
retirement he will get substantial amount as pension and gratuity.
These amounts are also payable on death, whatever be the cause of
death. Therefore, applying the same principles, the said amount
cannot be deducted."
9. Recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Hanumantharaju
B (dead) by L.R Vs. M. Akram Pasha & Ors.", reported as AIR 2025 SC 3283
has reiterated and re-affirmed the aforesaid view. In the said case, the Hon'ble
Apex Court has held that while computing the loss of income, it would not be
permissible to deduct the pensionary amount and that for the purpose of
computing the loss of income, the monthly salary has to be accepted without
deducting the pension amount.
10. In the face of aforesaid consistent legal position on the issue, the family
pension drawn by the claimant- Nirmala Devi after the death of her deceased
husband is not liable to be deducted while computing loss of dependency of the
claimants due to the death of the deceased. The contention of the
appellant/Insurance Company in this regard is without any merit and deserves to
be rejected.
6 of 7
FAO-5308-2019 (O&M) --7--
11. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any ground to interfere in the
award passed by the learned Tribunal. The appeal lacks merit. The same is,
accordingly, dismissed. The awarded amount be released in favour of the
claimants in accordance with the terms and conditions mentioned in the
impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal.
December 18, 2025 (HARKESH MANUJA)
(Sonika) JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/ No
7 of 7
