Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1974 (RAJ)

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Manju

2017-09-04

ARUN BHANSALI

body2017
JUDGMENT : Arun Bhansali, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 31.5.2017 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaitaran, District Pali ('the Tribunal'), whereby, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 10,45,460/- as compensation to the claimants along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of application i.e. 27.4.2015. 2. The application for compensation was filed by the claimants with the averments that one Inderchand, who was working with P.G. Foils started from the said factory and was going to his village Raipur, when the offending vehicle, being driven rashly and negligently, struck said Inderchand from behind, resulting in grievous injuries to him, to which he succumbed. 3. It was claimed that the deceased was aged 46 years and was working as driver with P.G. Foils permanently and based on said averments, compensation to the tune of Rs. 18,28,736/- was claimed. 4. Insurance Company disputed its liability. 5. The Tribunal framed five issues, on behalf of the claimants two witnesses were examined and on behalf of Insurance Company one witness was examined. 6. After hearing the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the insured vehicle, the objections raised by the appellant-Insurance Company seeking exoneration were rejected. The Tribunal thereafter, came to the conclusion that monthly salary of the deceased was Rs. 7,552/-, deducted ?rd towards personal expenses and after applying multiplier of 13, awarded a sum of Rs. 7,85,460/-. Further amounts towards loss of consortium, love & affection, care and guidance to the wife and children of the deceased, funeral expenses and transportation were awarded and in all compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,45,460/- along with interest as noticed, hereinbefore, was awarded. 7. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company that claimants were in receipt of Rs. 2 Lakh from the Company, where the deceased was working and, therefore, the said amount should have been deducted from the compensation payable to the claimants and to the said extent the award impugned deserves to be modified. 8. Reliance was placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Shashi Sharma & Ors., (2016) 9 SCC 627 . 9. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of claimants on caveat opposed the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant. 8. Reliance was placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Shashi Sharma & Ors., (2016) 9 SCC 627 . 9. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of claimants on caveat opposed the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant. It was submitted that the amount of Rs. 2 Lakh, which was received by the claimants, was not awarded by the Company, where the deceased was working, under any scheme, the amount was collected by the workers and was handed over to the family, which amount cannot be deducted from the compensation payable. It was prayed that the appeal be dismissed. 10. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shashi Sharma (supra) held that if the amount would be due to the dependents of the deceased even otherwise, the same shall not be deductible from the compensation amount payable under the 1988 Act. If the dependents of the deceased employee, however, were to be compensated by the employer in that behalf by way of ex gratia to grant financial assistance on compassionate ground, the dependents cannot be permitted to claim the same amount as a possible or likely loss of income to be suffered by them to maintain a claim for compensation under the 1988 Act. 12. In the present case, when Ashok Singh appeared as AW/2, he was cross-examined regarding payment of amount of Rs. 2 Lakh said to have been given to the wife of the deceased, he specifically stated in his cross-examination that the wife of the deceased was given Rs. 2 lakh as relief amount and the same was not paid under any policy and the amount was not paid on account of the accident, the same was given only as a help. 13. From the above statement of Ashok Singh AW/2, it is apparent that the amount was not paid by the Company under any of its Scheme providing for payment of an ex gratia amount to the family of an employee, who dies in harness. 13. From the above statement of Ashok Singh AW/2, it is apparent that the amount was not paid by the Company under any of its Scheme providing for payment of an ex gratia amount to the family of an employee, who dies in harness. As the said amount was incidentally paid by the employees to the family of the deceased by way of relief only, therefore, deduction of the said amount from the compensation payable to the claimants after calculating the same in terms of judgment in the case of Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. (2009) 6 SCC 121 is in no manner envisaged and therefore, the Tribunal was justified in not deducting the said amount from the compensation payable to the claimants. 14. In view thereof, there is no substance in appeal filed by the appellant. The same is, therefore, dismissed.