AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Nawab Singh, J.—This judgment shall dispose of aforesaid two appeals arising out of the Award dated January 31, 2011 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short ''the Tribunal''), Bathinda. The first appeal (FAO No. 3524 of 2011) has been filed by the widow and daughter of Prem Singh (deceased) seeking enhancement of compensation, while by filing second appeal (FAO No. 3664 of 2011) United Indian Insurance Company-insurer of Car No. PB-05L-9297 (for short ''the Car'') has sought reduction in the same.
On January 21, 2010, at about 5.00 pm, Prem Singh, aged 60 years along with his daughter Sunita Grewal-claimant was going in rickshaw to his house at Bathinda. In the meantime, the Car came at a fast speed, being driven rashly and negligently by Kewal Singh and struck against the rickshaw. Prem Singh suffered multiple injuries and died on the spot.
FIR (Exhibit A-1) was registered in Police Station Sri Guru Nanak Dev Thermal Plant, Bathinda against the driver of the car.
Widow and daughter of Prem Singh filed claim application u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, averring that the deceased was a retired employee of Guru Nanak Dev Thermal Plant, Bathinda. He was drawing pension of about Rs. 9000/-. Besides, he was running a grocery shop and was earning Rs. 5000/- per month from that business.
The Tribunal discarded the evidence in so far as running of grocery shop by the deceased was concerned, but considering that the deceased could earn Rs. 3000/- by doing any manual job, determined his income at Rs. 3000/- per month. 1/3rd was deducted towards personal and living expenses of the deceased and dependency was assessed at Rs. 2000/- per month, that is, Rs. 24,000/- per annum. That apart, the Tribunal assessed the loss of pensionary income at Rs. 3000/- per month, that is, Rs. 36,000/- per annum. The annual loss of dependency was held at Rs. 60,000/- (24,000 + 36,000). Considering the age of the deceased (60 years), multiplier of 7 was applied and total loss of dependency was assessed at Rs. 4,20,000/-. Besides, amount of 2500/-, each, towards ''funeral expenses'' and ''loss of consortium'', and Rs. 5,000/- for loss of ''love and affection'' were also awarded. In all, compensation of Rs. 4,30,000/- along with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of filing of claim application till its realisation, was awarded to the claimants.
Kulbhushan Bansal, Clerk, State Bank of Patiala (AW 2) on the basis of the record proved that Prem Singh (deceased) was getting pension of Rs. 9067/- per month. The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 3000/- considering him as an un-skilled labourer and deducted 1/3rd out of it towards personal and living expenses of the deceased. Thereafter, the Tribunal assessed the loss of pension to the claimants at Rs. 3000/- per month. In other words, the Tribunal assessed the loss of dependency to the tune of Rs. 5000/- per month.
Learned counsel for the Insurer has urged that in view of the affidavit (Annexure R-1) submitted by the widow of the deceased, she was getting family pension of Rs. 5700/- per month after the death of her husband, so, the amount of Rs. 3367/- (9067-5700) should be considered as ''loss in pension''. It was also urged that there was no evidence on the record to show that the deceased was doing any work after retirement and without cogent evidence, the Tribunal fell in error in assessing his monthly income at Rs. 3000/- as an unskilled labourer.
In considered opinion of this Court, the formula adopted by the Tribunal in assessing the income of the deceased was not proper. In Mrs. Helen C. Rebello and Others Vs. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corpn. and Another, , Hon''ble Supreme Court held that provident fund, pension, insurance and similarly any cash, bank balance, shares, fixed deposits, etc. are all a "pecuniary advantage" receivable by the heirs on account of one''s death but all these have no correlation with the amount receivable under a statute occasioned only on account of accidental death. Such an amount will not come within the periphery of the Motor Vehicles Act to be termed as "pecuniary advantage" liable for deduction. The said judgment was again referred to by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in a latest case Vimal Kanwar and Others Vs. Kishore Dan and Others, in holding the same view.
In view of above, there is no question of deducting the amount of family pension (Rs. 5700/-), being received by the dependents, viz. the widow and daughter of Prem Singh (deceased). So, the pensionary income of the deceased is held to be Rs. 9067/- per month. In so far as assessment of income of Rs. 3000/- per month is concerned, which in the opinion of the Tribunal, the deceased would have been earning by doing labour work, had he been alive, this Court does not accept the same. There is no evidence on record that the deceased was working after his retirement. It was pleaded that he was running a grocery shop, but the claimants have led no evidence to prove the same and, as such, the Tribunal rightly did not accept it. Hence, this Court determines the income of the deceased at Rs. 9067/- per month. After deducting 1/3rd towards his personal and living expenses, the monthly loss of dependency comes to Rs. 6044.66 paise, that is, Rs. 72536/- per annum. In the Ration Card (Exhibit R-11), the age of the deceased is mentioned as 61 years. Considering this fact, multiplier of 7 is to be applied.
The Tribunal has awarded meagre amounts of Rs. 2500/-, each, towards ''funeral expenses'' and ''loss of consortium'', and Rs. 5,000/- for loss of ''love and affection'', which requires enhancement. Accordingly, this Court holds that the claimants are entitled to the compensation as under:-
Accordingly, the Award of the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the appellants are held entitled to total compensation of Rs. 5,47,752/-, that is, Rs. 1,17,752/- over and above the amount awarded by the Tribunal. The interest on the enhanced amount of Rs. 1,77,752/- shall be paid from the date of filing claim application till the amount was deposited by the Insurance Company under the impugned Award at the same rate of interest as was awarded by the Tribunal. Hence, FAO No. 3524 of 2011 is partly accepted in the manner indicated above and FAO No. 3664 of 2011 is dismissed.