Compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act cannot be reduced due to benefits received from compassionate employment; all dependents are entitled to fair compensation for their loss.

JUDGMENT :

1. This appeal is preferred by the employer-original respondents against the judgment and award dated 16.12.2005, passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagpur, in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 1069 of 1998.

2. CLAIM

i) The petitioners contended that Madhukar Ghode, who died in a motor vehicular accident, was a senior agricultural scientist serving with the Union of India, at Nagpur.

ii) The petitioner No.1 in the claim petition, Smt. Malti, is the wife, petitioner Nos.2 and 3 Apeksha and Pratiksha, respectively, are the daughters of deceased Madhukar whereas petitioner No.4, 5 and 6 Utkarsha, Sudhanshu and Nikhil, respectively, are the sons of deceased Madhukar.

iii) On 4.6.1998, Madhukar, after completion of his duty, was returning from Gondia to Nagpur, by the official mini bus bearing No. MH-31-7261. The said bus met with an accident because of rash and negligent driving of respondent No.7, at 12.30 a.m. He was driving that bus in rash and negligent manner. The accident occurred near Bhilewada Shivar, District Bhandara. Madhukar died on the spot. The driver of the bus was prosecuted for rash and negligent driving.

iv) The petitioners had contended that they were depending upon the income of the deceased Madhukar and they claimed compensation of Rs.41,00,000/-.

3. DEFENCE

i) The appellants/respondent Nos. 1 and 2 resisted the claim petition. They admitted the relationship between the claimants and the deceased Madhukar, as well as the occurrence of accident. They further contended that an amount of Rs.2,12,572/- has been paid on account of Government Insurance and under various schemes to the claimants. The petitioners also received amount of Rs.8,03,521/- as GPF. The petitioner No.1 – wife of deceased Madhukar, has been sanctioned the pension of Rs.7249/- p.m.

ii) It is further contended that the respondents have provided employment to one of the petitioner i.e. petitioner No. 4 Utkarsha - respondent No. 3 herein, on compassionate ground. Therefore, the petitioners are not entitled for compensation.

iii) It is also contended that the log book of the said vehicle was incomplete and has been misused at the instance of deceased Madhukar. Although the vehicle was a Government vehicle but it was used by deceased Madhukar for his personal work. It was therefore, lastly prayed that the claim petition be dismissed.

4. Respondent No.3, the driver of the said bus, contended that when the bus had reached near Bhilewada Shivar, a truck came from the opposite direction in high speed with full headlights and that gave cut to his bus and due to which the accident occurred.

5. The learned Tribunal while answering three issues, held that death of Madhukar in the vehicular accident is proved. The petitioners were depending on the income of deceased Madhukar and therefore, they are entitled for compensation. An amount of Rs.15,49,700/- was awarded as compensation.

6. The learned advocate Ms. Mugdha Chandurkar, for the appellants pointed out the grounds of objections in this appeal and submitted that one of the claimant viz. Urkarsha has got the job in the department of agriculture of the Central Government, on compassionate ground. Therefore, the compensation amount awarded to the petitioners should be reduced accordingly. However, the learned tribunal did not consider the said aspect. She is relying upon the following precedential laws:-

i) Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation vs. Danish Khan (2019) 9 SCC 558, in which, in para 10, it was held that:-

“10. It is useful to refer to a judgment of this Court in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Rekhaben. The question that arose for consideration of this Court related to the deduction of salary that was earned by the claimant therein after being appointed on compassionate grounds while calculating the compensation payable to her under the Act for the death of her husband. It was held that the salary earned by compassionate appointment cannot be deducted from the