IMPORTANT POINT
Ex gratia amount paid to claimants should not be deducted from the compensation awarded under the MV Act, as it is in addition to any other compensation under any Scheme or Act.

ORDER :

This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short MV Act) is against the impugned award dated 27.10.2016 passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajnandgaon, CG (for short “the Tribunal”) in Claim Case No. 212/2014. By the impugned award, against a claim of Rs. 24,10,000/-, learned Tribunal has awarded the total compensation of Rs. 14,53,650/- in favour of the appellants / claimants on account of accidental death of Ramdas. The said accident occurred on 15.04.2014 on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle (Land Mine Vehicle) bearing registration No. C.G. 03/3190, by respondent No. 1. The offending vehicle was owned by respondent No. 2 / State of Chhattisgarh.

2. Since an amount of Rs. 10,20,000/- was paid by the police department / State of Chhattisgarh as ex gratia amount to the appellants / claimants, learned Tribunal while awarding the compensation deducted the same. It is worthwhile to mention here that learned Tribunal had initially quantified the compensation at Rs. 14,53,650/- but eventually after deducting the ex gratia amount of 10,00,000/- and Rs. 20,000/- for funeral expenses (total Rs. 10,20,000) arrived at the compensation payable to the claimants at Rs. 4,33,650/- (Rs. 4,38,650 mentioned wrongly in the impugned order).

3. As per the pleadings made in the claim application, the deceased was an Assistant Constable in the Police Department and at the relevant time he was discharging his duties in the land Mines Vehicle (for short “LMV”) for security purposes. When the police force including the deceased were going to Kahadabri from Maanpur, near a school in village Eragoan the offending vehicle turned turtle on account of the rash and negligent driving of its driver. As a result of the said accident, Ramdas suffered grievous injuries on his head and chest which eventually proved fatal to him leading to his on-the-spot death. Crime No. 36/14 for the offence under Section 279, 337, 338 and 304-A of IPC was registered against the driver of the offending vehicle. It is pleaded in the claim application that the deceased at the relevant time was aged about 40 years and was earning Rs. 8,500/- per month. The appellants / claimants herein are said to have been fully dependent on the income of the deceased.

4. The respondent No. 1 / driver filed his written statement and denied the claim averments. He however has stated that he being an employee of the police department was driving the offending vehicle as per the instructions given by the department, and that on the date of accident also he was taking the employees deputed for election duty. He has further stated that at the relevant time the vehicle was being driven very slowly but as some anti social elements had dug a pit and then erected stone slabs about two feet above the earth surface and as those stones slabs could not be visible from ones naked eye, the offending vehicle met with the unfortunate accident. He has pleaded that as the appellants have already been paid an ex gratia amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- and Rs. 20,000/- towards funeral expenses by the State Government, they are not entitled for any further compensation, and thus pleaded dismissal of the claim application.

5. Respondent No. 2 / owner also filed its written statement and denied all the claim averments. He has made almost the same plea as has been made by respondent No. 1, and eventually requested for dismissal of the claim.

6. On the basis of pleadings of the respective parties, learned Tribunal framed the issues and decided the same in favour of the appellants / claimants, assessing the compensation as detailed above but after making deduction of the ex gratia amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- and Rs. 20,000/- paid for funeral expenses, by the State Government.

7. Learned counsel for the appellants / claimants submits that the learned Tribunal has considered the monthly salary of the deceased at Rs. 8,243/- which is not proper; that the future