IMPORTANT POINT
Liability to compensate in case of motor accidents lies on the tort feasors, viz. the owner of the vehicle, the driver and the insurer. Employer of the deceased is not liable. Earnings of the dependents by way of compassionate appointment cannot reduce liability of compensation.

JUDGMENT :

S.A. Bobde, J.

Civil Appeal No. 8867 of 2012

1. The appellant–Insurance Company has preferred this appeal against the impugned judgment and order dated 28/29.03.2012 passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in First Appeal No.736 of 2012, whereby the High Court partly allowed the appeal of the claimants to the extent of enhancing the sum awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in MACP No.1239 of 1999 dated 10.12.2010.

2. The deceased, Girddharbhai Pansuriya @ Girish, an employee of Gujarat Electricity Board was travelling from Wankaner to Mendarda village, when his motorcycle was hit by a matador bearing registration no. GJ.1.T.T. 9761 insured by the appellant-National Insurance Co. Ltd. The matador, moving at a high speed on the opposite side of the road, dashed against the vehicle of the deceased from the front resulting in the fatality.

The wife of the deceased was given employment by the employer of the deceased with a regular salary on grounds of compassionate appointment.

3. The claimants viz., the wife, one minor child and the parents of the deceased, filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short, the 'Tribunal'). On the date of the accident, the deceased was working as Store Keeper with Gujarat Electricity Board. The Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.2,22,372/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum as compensation after deducting the amount of Rs.7,000/- per month from the salary of the deceased as this amount of Rs.7,000/- per month after deduction was received by respondent no.1 as salary from the employment which was given to her on compassionate ground by the employer due to the death of her husband. Being aggrieved, the claimants preferred an appeal before the High Court. The High Court allowed said appeal and enhanced the compensation to Rs.14,90,000/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum on the enhanced amount.

4. The High Court refused to deduct the amount received by the widow as salary on account of compassionate appointment in the Gujarat Electricity Board granted to her by the employer due to her husband's death. Being aggrieved, the appellant preferred this appeal against the impugned judgment and order dated 28/29.03.2012, passed by the High Court in First Appeal No.736 of 2012.

Civil Appeal No.3812 of 2017 @ SLP (C) No. 26882 of 2013

Leave Granted.

5. The appellant–Insurance Company has preferred this appeal against the impugned judgment and order dated 15.02.2013 passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in First Appeal No.1398 of 2002, whereby the High Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in MACP No.193 of 1994 dated 05.11.2001.

6. The injured, Ramrajsinh, an employee of Gujarat Electricity Board, was travelling in a matador van bearing registration no. GJ.3.T.9537 in the course of his employment. A truck bearing no. GJ.3.T.906 insured by the appellant–National Insurance Co. Ltd came from the opposite side of the road and collided with the van. As a result of the collision, the victim was seriously injured and suffered 70% permanent disability of his entire body. He was found unfit for further continuation in the job.

The wife of the injured was given employment by the employer of the injured in the same post on grounds of compassionate appointment.

7. The claimant viz. the wife of the injured filed an application for compensation before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Bhuj (for short, the ‘Tribunal’) from the opponents for the injuries sustained by her husband. By an award dated 05.11.2011, the Tribunal allowed the application for compensation and awarded total compensation of Rs.8,95,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum to the claimant. Being aggrieved, the appellant challenged the said award by filing an appeal before the High Court under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, inter alia, on the ground that since the wife of the injured had been given appo