Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 674 (MP)

NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. v. SHYAM SUNDER DIXIT

2000-07-17

A.K.MISHRA, BHAWANI SINGH

body2000
BHAWANI SINGH, C. J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal challenges the award of Motor Accidents claims Tribunal, Durg, dated 29. 2. 2000 in claim Case No. 77 of 1998. ( 2 ) ON 21. 6. 1998, Akhilesh Kumar Dixit (deceased) was going along with others in a bus, MP 23-J 0409 from Nagpur to Bhilai. The driver of the bus was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently. As a result, the rear part of the bus struck with another vehicle. The deceased was sitting in the last seat of the bus and as a result of this accident, there was big jerk due to which the deceased sustained injuries on his head. He was taken to the Government Hospital, rajnandgaon but on the way he died. He used to work in Bhilai Steel Plant and his monthly salary was Rs. 6,900 apart from yearly bonus of Rs. 6,500. At the time of accident, the deceased was 28 years old and was likely to get promotion six times taking the salary to at least Rs. 20,000-rs. 25,000. Against different heads, the claim of Rs. 34,30,000 has been raised. ( 3 ) THE respondent-non-claimant Nos. 1 and 2 have denied the claim. It is stated that the deceased was going to attend a marriage and was sitting negligently in the last seat of the bus after consuming liquor. Quite often, he was projecting out of the window for spitting and did not stop despite warning by the driver. At the time of accident, he behaved similarly resulting in the accident. In the accident, his head struck against another bus resulting in injuries and death. No mistake was committed by the respondents. The bus was being driven safely and with distance but the bus coming from the opposite side was being driven rashly and negligently with the result that the accident took place for which the deceased and the driver of the other bus are responsible. The bus was insured with the appellant insurance company. ( 4 ) THE Tribunal has found that the accident took place due to striking of the two buses in which the deceased died on account of injuries he sustained. His monthly salary has been fixed at Rs. 7,555. Consequently, award for Rs. 10,02,000 has been passed carrying interest of 12 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the application till the date of payment. His monthly salary has been fixed at Rs. 7,555. Consequently, award for Rs. 10,02,000 has been passed carrying interest of 12 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the application till the date of payment. ( 5 ) EVIDENCE on record has been perused by us and submissions made by Mr. N. S. Ruprah, learned counsel for the appellant, considered. The contention of the learned counsel for appellant is that after the accident, the claimants are going to get the same amount of money which the deceased had been getting. There is no loss to them. Therefore, the claimants are not entitled to compensation. On the basis of this submission, our attention is drawn to the evidence recorded by the Tribunal. From evidence, we find that the claimant widow is likely to get same payment provided she neither seeks release of G. P. F. and gratuity amount from the employer nor she is paid interest on this amount during the period she realises this amount till the date of reaching the age of superannuation by the deceased. This amount becomes payable to the claimant under a scheme that is prevalent in the industry in which the deceased was employed. Substantial amount of G. P. F. and gratuity is retained, otherwise this facility will not be available. During the currency of the scheme, no interest is payable on the amount. ( 6 ) THE conclusion is irresistible that such a benefit can be compared with benefits otherwise available to the claimants, like insurance amount, gratuity, ex gratia payment, G. P. F. , Group Insurance Scheme and under any other scheme initiated by the employer, etc. Similar is the position in this case. The benefits of the scheme based on the savings of employee, be they in the form of contribution like G. P. F. , employees Insurance Scheme or any other scheme that may be started by the employer are dehors the amount of compensation to which the claimants are entitled, on account of death of the deceased in motor accident. ( 7 ) HAVING come to the aforesaid conclusion, we examined whether the amount of compensation awarded in this case by the tribunal is reasonable or calls for interference. We find no justification to interfere in the view taken by the Tribunal in awarding the compensation in this case. ( 7 ) HAVING come to the aforesaid conclusion, we examined whether the amount of compensation awarded in this case by the tribunal is reasonable or calls for interference. We find no justification to interfere in the view taken by the Tribunal in awarding the compensation in this case. ( 8 ) V There is no merit in this appeal, consequently the same is dismissed. Appeal dismissed. .