Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Co. Ltd – Appellant
Versus
Usha Gupta, W/o Late Shri M.R. Gupta – Respondent
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
The appeal was filed by the insurance company challenging the award of compensation for the death of an elderly man in a road accident, arguing that only non-pecuniary damages should be awarded and that no compensation for loss of dependency should be considered due to the absence of evidence of gainful employment (!) (!) .
The court clarified that the purpose of awarding compensation is to provide just and fair relief to the legal heirs and to alleviate their financial hardship, not to replace the deceased (!) .
It was established that family pension is not a pecuniary advantage directly related to the accidental death and should not be deducted from the compensation amount. Family pension is earned through service and is intended to support the family, independent of the cause of death (!) (!) .
The court emphasized that amounts receivable under statutory benefits, such as pension or family pension, do not have a co-relation with the accidental death and are not liable for deduction while calculating compensation (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The decision reaffirmed that benefits like pension and gratuity are property of the deceased and are paid based on service conditions, not as a direct consequence of the accidental death (!) .
The court observed that the object of family pension is to sustain the surviving family members and ensure their livelihood, and thus, it cannot be considered as gainful income or pecuniary advantage related to the death (!) .
Consequently, the learned tribunal's decision not to deduct the family pension while calculating the compensation was upheld as correct (!) .
The appeal was dismissed, and the statutory deposit made by the insurance company was ordered to be returned (!) (!) .
Overall, the court held that the award of compensation was just and proper, and no interference was warranted (!) .
JUDGMENT :
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.
1. An Appeal under Section 173 Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 has been filed by the Insurance Company to challenge the Award dated 24.01.2024, vide which the compensation in the sum of Rs. 13,36,140/- along with interest @ 7% per annum has been awarded to the Claimants Respondent No.1&2/wife and son on account of demise of Sh. M.R. Gupta, aged 80 years, in the road accident dated 21.11.2021.
2. The Appellant/Insurance Company has challenged the Impugned Award on the ground that only Non-Pecuniary Damages ought to have been granted to the legal heirs of the 80-year-old deceased and no compensation towards Loss of Dependency could have been paid as there was no evidence that the 80-year-old deceased was gainfully employed. Further, there was no loss of income, as the only dependent i.e. the wife is already getting family pension to the tune of Rs. 20,000/- p.m.
3. Submissions heard and record perused.
4. Briefly stated, on 21.11.2021, at about 12:01 P.M, when the Deceased was crossing the road near Madipur Police Chowki, Punjabi Bagh, the offending Vehicle bearing Registration No. DL 8SCW0855 driven at a high speed, in a rash and negligent manner by the Driver
Family pension is not a pecuniary advantage related to accidental death and should not be deducted from compensation awarded under the Motor Vehicles Act.
Pension income constitutes a loss in dependency claims and must be compensated irrespective of family pension received by heirs.
Family pension should not be deducted from compensation in motor accident claims, and dependants must be established based on evidence.
Compensation for wrongful death under the Motor Vehicles Act must not deduct pension or insurance benefits; claimants are also entitled to future prospects enhancement regardless of the deceased's ag....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of 'just compensation' under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and the clarification that pensionary benefits, family pension, and ot....
Compensation for loss of dependency must not deduct pension or personal expenses; future prospects should be included, with the correct multiplier applied.
Compensation under the Motor Vehicle Act addresses pecuniary losses due to death, independent of pensions, emphasizing appropriate evidence and loss assessment.
The court established that multiplier for compensation depends on the accurate assessment of the deceased's age and clarified that family pension cannot be included as income for loss of dependency.
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
