Back
PANKAJ MITHAL, PRASANNA B. VARALE
Managing Director, KSRTC – Appellant
Versus
P. Chandramouli – Respondent
इस निर्णय में यह स्पष्ट किया गया है कि मोटर दुर्घटना में मृतक के परिजनों को मिलने वाली सामाजिक सुरक्षा या समूह बीमा जैसी सुविधाओं से प्राप्त रकम को मुआवजे से घटाया नहीं जा सकता है। ये लाभ स्वतंत्र अनुबंधित संबंधों से प्राप्त होते हैं और इनका संबंधित दुर्घटना से कोई सीधा संबंध नहीं है, इसलिए इनका मुआवजे से कटौती करना उचित नहीं है।
यह भी कहा गया है कि दुर्घटना के कारण प्राप्त मुआवजे की राशि पर लाभ और हानि का संतुलन स्थापित करने का सिद्धांत लागू नहीं किया जा सकता है, यदि इन लाभों का दुर्घटना से कोई संबंध नहीं है। मुआवजे का उद्देश्य केवल वास्तविक नुकसान की पूर्ति करना है, न कि लाभ प्राप्त करने का अवसर देना।
अंत में, न्यायालय ने यह भी कहा है कि यदि परिजनों को किसी अन्य स्रोत से वित्तीय लाभ मिलता है, तो उसे मुआवजे से घटाना आवश्यक नहीं है, क्योंकि ये लाभ स्वतंत्र अनुबंधों के तहत प्राप्त होते हैं और दुर्घटना से सीधे जुड़े नहीं होते हैं।
सभी निर्णयों को सही मानते हुए, उच्च न्यायालय के फैसले को बरकरार रखा गया है और इन मामलों में अपील खारिज कर दी गई है।
JUDGMENT
PRASANNA B. VARALE, J
FACTUAL MATRIX IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.5490-5491
1. Civil Appeal No. 5490-5491 of 2025 arises from the impugned judgment and order dated 10.06.2021 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, in MFA NO. 2593 Of 2020 C/W MFA.NO. 3299 Of 2020 wherein the High Court partly allowed the appeals by modifying the Tribunal’s order. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant has Preferred the present appeal.
2. On 30.07.2018, the deceased P. Visweswar was riding a motor cycle bearing registration No. KA-01-JA-0746. When he reached near Bharath Petrol Bunk, Murakambattu, Chittor, a KSRTC bus bearing Registration No.KA-06-F-1126, being driven in a rash and negligent manner, came to the wrong side and dashed against the deceased’s motor cycle. As a result of the aforesaid accident, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and subsequently succumbed to the same. The claimants thereupon filed a Claim petition MVC No. 4788/2018 under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before the MACT, Bengaluru, claiming Rs.1,00,00,000 as compensation along with interest. The claimants averred that the deceased was aged about 34 years at the time of accident and was employed as a
(1) Death in motor accident – Amounts received by dependants of deceased under employer-provided group insurance or other contractual or social security benefits cannot be treated as “pecuniary advan....
Deduction can be ordered only where the tortfeasor satisfies the court that the amount has accrued to the claimants only on account of death of the deceased in a motor vehicle accident
A person cannot gain twice from different sources for the same incident; therefore, compensation should not be deducted based on unrelated benefits.
Compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act should not deduct benefits like family pension, which are separate from statutory compensation, and contributory negligence was established based on availabl....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that only payments co-related to the death of the deceased in a motor accident can be deducted from the compensation payable under the Motor Vehicl....
The court reinforced the principle that in motor accident claims, the burden of proving negligence lies with the party contesting the claim, and that 'just compensation' must be calculated based on t....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
