Deductions for allowances from deceased's income in motor accident claims are impermissible; courts should enhance compensation based on actual earnings and future prospects.

ORDER :

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

1. Since both these appeals are arising out of common impugned order, they have been clubbed together, heard together and are being disposed by this common judgment.

2. The claimants as well as the insurance company both have preferred these two appeals under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ( for short “Act of 1988”) against the impugned award passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Surajpur, Chhattisgar (for brevity “AMACT”). Claimants in their appeal i.e. MAC No.1487/2022 are seeking enhancement of award and whereas the insurance company in its appeal i.e. MAC No.1173/2022 is seeking reduction in the amount of award granted by the AMACT.

3. Mr. Akash Shrivastava, learned counsel for the claimants, would submit that the amount of house rent allowance, provident fund, vehicle fuel allowance and medical allowance could not have been deducted from the monthly income of the deceased in light of decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Vimal Kanwar and others v. Kishore Dan and others , [ (2013) 7 SCC 476 ] and, therefore, the appeal of the claimants be allowed and the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal may suitably be enhanced and further the appeal of the insurance company is liable to be dismissed.

4. Mr. Sourabh Sharma, learned counsel for the insurance company, would submit that the compensation awarded to the claimants by the impugned award dated 20.07.2022 is on higher side, therefore, appeal filed on behalf of the claimants deserves to be dismissed while making deduction in the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and gone through the records meticulously.

6. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the matter of Vimal Kanwar (supra) have held that the amount of Provident Fund, Pension, Insurance and similarly any cash, bank balance, shares, fixed deposits, etc. are all a “pecuniary advantage” receivable by the heirs on account of one’s death and the same could not have been deducted from the monthly income of the deceased and observed in paragraphs No. 18 & 19 as under:-

“18. The first issue is “whether Provident Fund, Pension and Insurance receivable by claimants come within the periphery of the Motor Vehicles Act to be termed as “Pecuniary Advantage” liable for deduction.”

19. The aforesaid issue fell for consideration before this Court in Helen C. Rebello v. Maharashtra SRTC. In the said case, this Court held that Provident Fund, Pension, Insurance and similarly any cash, bank balance, shares, fixed deposits, etc. are all a “pecuniary advantage” receivable by the heirs on account of one’s death but all these have no correlation with the amount receivable under a statute occasioned only on account of accidental death. Such an amount will not come within the periphery of the Motor Vehicles Act to be termed as “pecuniary advantage” liable for deduction. The following was the observation and finding of this Court:

“35. Broadly, we may examine the receipt of the provident fund which is a deferred payment out of the contribution made by an employee during the tenure of his service. Such employee or his heirs are entitled to receive this amount irrespective of the accidental death. This amount is secured, is certain to be received, while the amount under the Motor Vehicles Act is uncertain and is receivable only on the happening of the event, viz., accident, which may not take place at all. Similarly, family pension is also earned by an employee for the benefit of his family in the form of his contribution in the service in terms of t