The judgment emphasizes the correct computation of compensation in motor accident claims, considering factors such as pension deduction and loss of future prospects.

JUDGMENT

Vinit Kumar Mathur, J. - The present appeal has been preferred by the appellantsclaimants against the judgment and award dated 27.09.2011 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sri Ganganagar in Claim Case No. 127/2007 whereby, the learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 2,41,684/- in their favour on account of the death of Kishna Ram in the accident which occurred on 05.11.2006.

2. Learned Tribunal after framing the issues, evaluating the evidence on record and hearing the learned counsel for the parties decided the claim petition of the appellants-claimants.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants-claimants submitted that the finding of the Tribunal on Issue No. 2 is erroneous as the total monthly income of the deceased Kishna Ram was Rs. 10,668/- whereas the Tribunal wrongly deducted the amount of Rs. 5,723/- which he was getting as pension, from his total monthly income. He submitted that the pension amount cannot be deducted from the total monthly income of the deceased while computing the award. To buttress his arguments, learned counsel for the appellants-claimants has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Vimal Kanwar & Ors. vs. Kishore Dan & Ors.,2013 RAR 118 (SC).

4. He further submitted that no amount towards loss of future prospects was awarded by the Tribunal to the appellantsclaimants. Since the deceased was 45 years of age at the time of accident, learned counsel submitted that amount towards loss of future prospects is liable to be awarded to the appellantsclaimants in view of the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi, (2017) AIR SC 5157.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants-claimants also submitted that despite there being evidence on record showing that there are total four dependents of the deceased, the Tribunal only deducted 1/3rd amount to be spent on the deceased himself, whereas it should have been a deduction of 1/4th amount of total income. He further submits that although the son of the deceased Bhagirath is major, but he was dependent on the income of the deceased.

6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company supported the judgment of the Tribunal dated 27.09.2011 and submitted that the finding on Issue No.2 does not suffer from any infirmity as the Tribunal, while computing the income of the deceased, rightly deducted the pension of the deceased from his total monthly income. He further submitted that the compensation awarded in the present case is a 'just compensation' and it does not warrant any interference by this Court.

7. He also submitted that it has come on record in the cross examination of Chanda Devi that the major son of the deceased, namely, Bhagirath is an agriculturist and is involved in the work of farming and, therefore, he was not dependent on his deceased father. He, therefore, submitted that Tribunal has rightly deducted the amount to the extent of 1/3rd of total income.

8. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and have gone through the judgment dated 27.09.2011 as well as relevant record of the case.

9. The finding of the Tribunal on Issue No.2 inasmuch as deducting the pension amount of the deceased from the total monthly income is erroneous as the income towards the pension is also an income of the deceased and the same was being utilized for his personal and other domestic purposes, therefore, deduction of the same from the total income is incorrect.

On this issue, Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Vimal Kanwar (supra) held as under :-

"19. 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." The aforesaid issue fell for consideration before this Court in Helen C. Rebello (Mrs) & Ors. vs. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation & Anr., (1999) 1 SCC 90. In the said case, this Court held