Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 167 (UTT)

CIVIL & SOYAM VAN PRABHAG v. SAVITRI DEVI

2016-04-12

SERVESH KUMAR GUPTA

body2016
JUDGMENT Having heard the rival contentions of learned counsel for both the parties at the stage of admission itself, the Court feels it expedient to adjudicate this case at this very stage. 2. In brief, facts are that the deceased was a Forest Guard employed with the appellant. He lost his life on 27.05.2005 while boarded in the Govt. Gypsy No.U.P.06/4126. At the time of accident, he was drawing the salary of Rs. 7424/- per month. So, the learned Tribunal, multiplying such salary by ‘12’, has evaluated the annual income to the tune of Rs. 89,088/- and this was the base amount to calculate the compensation to the tune of Rs. 11,60,424/-. 3. Learned counsel on behalf of the appellant has relied on the following two precedents of Hon’ble Apex Court:- (i) Bhakra Beas Management Board vs. Kanta Aggarwal and Others reported in 2008 (3) T.A.C. 661 (S.C.) (ii) Ramprasad Balmiki vs. Anil Kumar Jain and Others reported in 2008 (4) T.A.C. 385 (S.C). 4. In the case of Bhakra Beas (Supra), deceased was an employee of the appellant and out of the accident, while boarded in the employer’s Jeep, he lost his life. The Tribunal awarded the compensation of Rs. 8,48,160/- to the widow of the deceased in view of her compassionate appointment wherefrom she was getting the monthly salary of Rs. 4700/- nay a residence was also provided to her by the employer. Appeal of the employer, against the quantum of the award, was dismissed by the High Court confirming the judgment of the Tribunal; thereafter, the Employer knocked the door of the Hon’ble Apex Court on the ground that award was extremely high and concept of just compensation was lost from consideration by the High Court. In that eventuality, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the High Court lost sight of the fact that the benefits which the claimants received on account of the death or injury had to be duly considered while fixing compensation. 5. In that eventuality, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the High Court lost sight of the fact that the benefits which the claimants received on account of the death or injury had to be duly considered while fixing compensation. 5. In the given set of facts, the Apex Court held that when the compassionate job and residence was given to the widow of the deceased immediately after the accident, then in such a situation, the judgment of the High Court was clearly unsustainable; but since the accident took place 14 years back, so, the Apex Court did not consider it desirable to sent back the matter to the Tribunal and the deposit of Rs.5 lacs, as per order of the Hon’ble Apex Court, was held to be a just and proper compensation. Meaning thereby, the compensation was almost reduced to the tune of Rs.3.50 lakh. 6. In another precedent relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant Ramprasad Balmiki (Supra), the injured was compulsory retired on account of shortening of his right leg, which was the result of an accident took place while performing the duty by the appellant, therein, as the driver on the vehicle of Cantonment Board, Gwalior. The Civil Surgeon declared him unfit to drive the vehicle. The Tribunal found that the claimants did not sustain any kind of permanent disability and was not entitled to compensation on that account, however, the Tribunal passed an award of Rs.85,000/-. 7. In appeal, the High Court enhanced the same to Rs.3.75 lakh opining that as per the certificate issued by the Medical Board, the extent of permanent disability suffered by the claimant was 40%. So, it was held that the claimant was guilty of suppression of facts and the Hon’ble Apex Court held that since the permanent disability suffered by the claimant was only 40% and not 100% and the claimant, on account of compulsory retirement, lost earning capacity to the tune of Rs.2,000/- per month; it was also held that the amount of pension which he was getting would have mitigated the quantum of damages and the same was required to be taken into consideration. So, the view of Hon’ble Supreme Court was that the High Court was more liberal in awarding the compensation viz. enhancing the compensation to the tune of Rs.3. So, the view of Hon’ble Supreme Court was that the High Court was more liberal in awarding the compensation viz. enhancing the compensation to the tune of Rs.3. 75 lakh was considered to be a view of “more than liberal” and thus it was not relished. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel on behalf of the respondents (claimants), has relied upon the precedent of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Vimal Kanwar and Others vs. Kishore Dan and Others reported in (2013) 7 SCC 476 , 2013 (1) UAD 861. Here, the ratio, which has been laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court, is that computation of pecuniary advantages received from other sources by reason of victim’s death like provident fund, pension and life insurance, receivable by claimants on account of victim’s death, do not come within the periphery of Motor Vehicles Act to be termed as “pecuniary advantage”. 9. It can clearly be observed that in the case of Vimal Kanwar (Supra), the deceased was sitting on a scooter and an offending vehicle (insured) coming from front dashed him, with the result he lost his life. He was the employee of some other organization, so, all the pecuniary advantages were received by his dependants, who also claimed the compensation from the Insurance Company of the offending vehicle under the Motor Vehicles Act. So, it is crystal clear that the facts and circumstances of the case, which has relied by learned counsel for the claimants, are not on the similar footing to that of the cases, so relied by learned counsel for the appellant as also with the present case. 10. Here, the deceased Mahavir Singh Rawat was the employee of the appellant itself who lost his life while boarding in the jeep of his employer. His widow has got compassionate appointment along with other pecuniary benefits like gratuity, pension etc. The jeep of the appellant was not insured and the employer was none other but the government itself whose vehicle was not insured and that is the reason the Government while framing the service rules has envisaged the provision of compassionate appointment gratuity, family pension etc. The jeep of the appellant was not insured and the employer was none other but the government itself whose vehicle was not insured and that is the reason the Government while framing the service rules has envisaged the provision of compassionate appointment gratuity, family pension etc. So, the employee, who is boarded in the Government jeep, may he be driver or other staff, in my opinion, cannot be compared in parity with those who are traveling in private vehicles whose insurance either for the third party or for the persons traveling within the vehicle is either compulsory or desirable. 11. There is yet another aspect of the matter. All the employees of the Government remain insured also in case they loose their life during the course of employment. Here, in the present case also, dependants of the deceased certainly must have got the amount of such insurance. 12. That apart, it has been held time and again by the Hon’ble Apex Court itself that the death of a person, in a motor accident, is not to be taken as a windfall for the dependants. The compensation is not to be evaluated as largesse. The whole object of this beneficial legislation is to save the dependants of deceased from the verge of starvation or coming on road without any shelter or protection of their career or person and the Government or its any department has framed many other provisions as well in this regard. So, from this point of view as well, the calculation of the compensation/award to the wife/dependants of the deceased of a Government Department, cannot be placed upon the same footings as that of any other person who had suffered the injury or lost his life on account of the accident by any other vehicle on the road. 13. In the instant matter, as have been disclosed hereinabove, deceased was getting the monthly salary of Rs. 7424/- and after his death, besides compulsory appointment, his wife is getting pension of Rs.5813/- per month. Had he been alive, then she certainly must not have got any pension. So, at the most for evaluating the compensation, the difference of salary and pension i.e. Rs. (7424-5813)/- =Rs.1611 /- would have been taken for consideration. 14. 7424/- and after his death, besides compulsory appointment, his wife is getting pension of Rs.5813/- per month. Had he been alive, then she certainly must not have got any pension. So, at the most for evaluating the compensation, the difference of salary and pension i.e. Rs. (7424-5813)/- =Rs.1611 /- would have been taken for consideration. 14. If such amount is taken for consideration and then multiplying it by ‘12’, it comes to Rs.19,332/- (1611 x 12); reducing it further by 1/4th towards the personal expenses of the deceased, it comes to Rs.14,499/- and apply the multiplier of ‘14’, as done by the Tribunal, it comes to Rs. 2,02,986/-. 15. The Court is not inclined to disturb the amount of consortium of Rs.1 (one) lac and funeral expenses of Rs.25,000/-, while at the same, do away with the amount of Rs.1 (one) lac granted by the Tribunal in the score of Loss of care and guidance. 16. Thus, the total amount of compensation which the claimants are entitled to get is Rs.3,27,986/- (rupees three lakh twenty seven thousand nine hundred eighty six only). 17. The appeal is allowed in the above terms and the judgment of the Tribunal on the quantum of compensation is modified to the above extent.