Rajasthan High Court
Director State Insurance And ... vs Mukut Bihari Sharma S/O Suva Lal ... on 17 October, 2022
Bench: Anoop Kumar Dhand
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 4091/2018
Director State Insurance And Provident Fund Department, Vitta
Bhawan, D Block, Iind Floor, Janpath, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Appellant
Versus
1. Mukut Bihari Sharma S/o Suva Lal Sharma, Aged About
63 Years, R/o 15 Gopalbari, Near Navjyoti, School-I,
Namdev Colony, Sanganer, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. Pankaj Sharma S/o Mukut Bihari Sharma, Aged About 28
Years, R/o 15 Gopalbari, Near Navjyoti, School-I, Namdev
Colony, Sanganer, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
3. Anita Sharma D/o Mukut Bihari Sharma, Aged About 27
Years, R/o 15 Gopalbari, Near Navjyoti, School-I,
Namdev Colony, Sanganer, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
4. Mahender Singh Shakhawat S/o Pep Singh, Aged About
42 Years, R/o Chandwaji, Police Station Chandwaji, Jaipur,
Distt. Jaipur.
5. Jaipur City Transport Limited, Through Dy. Commissioner,
Drts, Office R.k. Vyas Bhawan, J.d.a. J.l.n. Marg, Jaipur.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Pankaj Chaudhary, Advocate for
Mr. Rohit Chaudhary, Advocate
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Satish Kumar Khandal, Advocate
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND
Judgment
17/10/2022
Instant appeal has been preferred against the judgment and
award dated 27.02.2018 passed by the Court of Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal-cum-Essential Commodities Act, Jaipur
Metropolitan, Jaipur (for short 'the Tribunal') in claim case
No.32/2012 by which the claim petition filed by the claimants was
(2 of 4) [CMA-4091/2018]
allowed and the Insurance Company was directed to pay
compensation of Rs. 26,60,183/- to the claimants.
Learned Tribunal after evaluating the evidence of both
parties and documents available on record, deciding the claim
petition in favour of the claimants and awarded compensation as
indicated above.
Learned counsel for the appellants-Insurance Company
submits that after the death of the deceased, the daughter of the
deceased got compassionate appointment, hence, the claimants
were not entitled to get any sort of compensation. Counsel further
submits that under the conventional heads, an exorbitant amount
of Rs.1,20,000/- has been awarded in favour of the claimants and
in the light of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi
reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157, claimants are entitled to get
only Rs.70,000/- under this head. Therefore, he prayed that
interference of this Court is warranted.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance
Company submitted that the Tribunal while deciding the claim
petition has correctly taken into consideration all the factors while
calculating the award in the present case on the anvil of evidence
produced before it.
He further submits that getting compassionate appointment
after death of the deceased cannot be a ground to reject the claim
petition and the claimants are entitled to get compensation. In
support of his contentions, he has placed reliance on the judgment
of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vimal Kanwar & Ors. Vs.
Kishore Dan & Ors. In Civil Appeal No.5513 of 2012. Thus,
(3 of 4) [CMA-4091/2018]
the judgment passed by the Tribunal does not call for any
interference by this Court.
I have considered the submissions made at Bar and gone
through the impugned judgment and award as well as other
relevant documents available on record.
Getting compassionate appointment cannot be a ground to
deny compensation to the claimants of the deceased as the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vimal Kanwar (supra) has dealt
with the identical issue and held in Para No.20 as under:-
"20.The second issue is "whether the salary
receivable by the claimant on compassionate
appointment comes within the periphery of the Motor
Vehicles Act to be termed as "Pecuniary Advantage"
liable for deduction." "Compassionate appointment"
can be one of the conditions of service of an
employee, if a scheme to that effect is framed by the
employer. In case, the employee dies in harness i.e.
while in service leaving behind the dependents, one
of the dependents may request for compassionate
appointment to maintain the family of the deceased
employee dies in harness. This cannot be stated to
be an advantage receivable by the heirs on account
of one's death and have no correlation with the
amount receivable under a statute occasioned on
account of accidental death. Compassionate
appointment may have nexus with the death of an
employee while in service but it is not necessary that
it should have a correlation with the accidental
death. An employee dies in harness even in normal
course, due to illness and to maintain the family of
the deceased one of the dependents may be entitled
for compassionate appointment but that cannot be
termed as "Pecuniary Advantage" that comes under
the periphery of Motor Vehicles Act and any amount
received on such appointment is not liable for
deduction for determination of compensation under
the Motor Vehicles Act."
This Court is in full agreement with the ratio propounded by
the Hon'ble Apex Court on this question in the case of Vimal
Kanwar (supra) because any amount received on compassionate
(4 of 4) [CMA-4091/2018]
appointment is not liable for deduction for determination of
compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act.
This Court finds force in the arguments raised by counsel for
the appellant that an excess amount of Rs.1,20,000/- has been
awarded under the conventional heads in favour of the claimants.
In the light of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Pranay Sethi (supra), the claimants are entitled to get Rs.70,000/-
only.
Thus, an amount of Rs.50,000/- (Rs.1,20,000/- -
Rs.70,000/-) is reduced from the award passed by the Tribunal.
The Tribunal is directed to refund a sum of Rs.50,000/- with
interest to the Insurance Company within a period of two months
from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
In view of the above discussion, the appeal filed by the
appellant-Insurance Company is partly allowed.
All pending applications, if any also stand disposed of.
Record of the Tribunal be sent back forthwith.
(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J
HEENA GANDHI /36
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
