IMPORTANT POINT
Insurance benefits cannot be deducted from compensation as they are collateral benefits unrelated to the accident, reaffirming the principle of just compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act.

JUDGMENT :

MAULIK J.SHELAT, J.

1. The present appeal is filed by the Insurance Company under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act (herein after referred to as ‘the M.V. Act’) challenging judgment and award dated 18.11.2016 passed by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (Aux.), Surat in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.287 of 2011.

2. The parties will be referred as their original position before the Tribunal.

3. Short facts of the case appear to be as under;

3.1 That on 18.03.2011 at about 10:30 hours, the deceased Raxitaben was going on his yo-bike from his house to his clinic at Parle Point by obeying traffic rules at the left side of the road and when she reached near Sardar Bridge, Opponent no.1 was driving his S.T.Bus No.GJ-5-T-1427 in a rash and negligent manner and violating traffic rules, dashed his bus with yo-bike of deceased – Raxitaben, thereby she received serious injuries and succumbed to it during course of treatment on 23.03.2011.

3.2 As the death of the deceased was due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the bus involved in the accident, so the claimants have filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Act claiming compensation of Rs.1,00,00,000/- from driver, owner and insurance company of bus.

3.3 FIR came to be lodged against opponent no.1. The Opponent no.2- Commissioner, Surat Municipal Corporation, was the owner of the bus. Opponent No.1 and 2 though served but not filed any written statement, thereby, not contested the petition. Whereas, opponent no.3 - insurance company (Appellant herein) had contested the petition on all counts by filing its written statement at Exh.17.

3.4 It is a case of claimants that deceased was 36 years of age at the time of accident serving as doctor in Charak Health Centre at Parle point, which was an authorised health center of Charak Pharma Private Limited, Mumbai. It is further alleged that she was also doing her private practice. The deceased was holding Degree of M.A. in psychology and a diploma in Clinical and Community Psychology (DCCP) from Gujarat University.

3.5 The Claimants have submitted oral evidence of claimant No.1- husband of deceased and submitted various documentary evidence to prove that the accident in question as well as income of deceased, which are referred by Tribunal in para-7 of its impugned judgment.

3.6 The Opponents have not led any oral and documentary evidence in support of their defence.

3.7 The written arguments were tendered by claimants and insurance company at Exh.68 and 69 respectively in support of their case.

3.8 After appreciating evidence on record, the Tribunal has found driver of the bus solely negligent for causing accident and held that deceased died due to vehicular accident due to sole negligence of the driver of the bus.

3.9 Thereafter, the Tribunal has decided the quantum of compensation and taking into account the documentary evidence of income of deceased and in all awarded Rs.57,85,000/- with 9% from the date of petition till realization to be paid jointly and severally by opponents.

4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award, opponent no.3 – insurance company has preferred the present first appeal on various grounds enumerated in the memo of appeal but during the course of hearing, learned advocate Mr. Krutik A Parikh, appearing for insurance company confined his argument in relation to quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT – INSURANCE COMPANY

4. Learned advocate Mr. Krutik A. Parikh, appearing for insurance company has vehemently submitted that Tribunal has committed a gross error by considering the income of the deceased on basis of her alleged computation of income which are submitted at Exh. 22 to 24 by treating it as an income tax return of deceased – Raxitaben, thereby committed a serious error in computing income of deceased.

4.1 Learned advocate Mr. Krutik A. Parikh, appearing for insurance company would further submit that the claimants have not submitte