The main legal point established in the judgment is that claimants are entitled to just compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, and any pecuniary advantage accrued to the deceased should not be deducted from the compensation.

JUDGMENT :

RAJNESH OSWAL, J.

1. The appeal MA No. 213/2012 has been filed against the judgment and award dated 22.12.2011 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jammu (hereinafter to be referred as the Tribunal) in file No. 442/Claim, titled, Soma Devi and Others vs. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Others whereby a compensation of Rs. 12,65,000/- has been awarded to the claimants/ respondents Nos. 1 to 5 along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization. Simultaneously, the claimants/respondent Nos. 1 to 3 have also filed a cross-appeal against the aforesaid award for enhancement of the compensation.

2. The award has been impugned by the appellant-Insurance Company primarily on the ground of quantum as the learned Tribunal has not considered that the deceased was a Government employee and his family members would continue to draw salary of the deceased for a period of seven years from the date of death of the deceased, meaning thereby that there was no monetary loss to the dependents for a period of seven years.

3. In the appeal filed by the claimants, it has been stated that the learned tribunal has not rightly assessed the compensation.

4. Mr. Rupinder Singh, learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company has restricted his arguments only on the issue that the deceased was a Government employee and his dependents were getting the salary for seven years but the learned Tribunal has not considered the said fact. Mr. Rupinder Singh further submitted that interest cannot be paid for the period when the claim petition was not pending before the tribunal as the same was dismissed for lack of evidence on 23.12.2005 and order was recalled on 04.11.2011.

5. Per contra, Mr. C.B. Salathia, learned counsel for the claimants/respondent Nos. 1 to 3 has submitted that the compensation is required to be enhanced as the learned Tribunal has not properly assessed the compensation while computing the same and further the compensation is required to be enhanced as per Sarla Verma and Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, (2009) 6 SCC 121.

6. Heard and perused the record.

7. The claimants/respondent Nos. 1 to 5 filed the claim petition for grant of compensation on account of death of Baldev Singh, age-41 years, in a road accident that took place on 11.04.2002 at Jamorha, near Mansar Road, Tehsil, Samba, who was husband of respondent No. 1, father of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and son of respondent Nos. 4 and 5. The respondent Nos. 6 and 7 did not contest the claim and they were set ex-parte by the learned Tribunal. The appellant filed the response to the claim petition in which it was stated that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding an effective and valid driving license at the time of accident and the compensation claimed by the respondents is highly exaggerated. It was also pleaded that the claimants were getting full salary of the deceased which he was getting before death and thereafter the claimants will be getting pension. After considering the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal has framed the following issues:

“1. Whether the accident took place on 11.04.2022 near Mansar, Tehsil Samba due to rash and negligent driving of offending Vehicle No. JKS-7762 by its driver in which deceased namely Smt. Tripta Devi, Kaushalaya Devi, Raj Kumar, Rajinder Kumar Gupta, Mangal Singh, Baldev Singh and Rasal Chand had died and petitioners namely Om Parkash, Tara Chand and Ishwar Singh sustained grievous injuries? OPP

2. If Issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative whether petitioners in case are entitled to the compensation, if so to what amount and from whom? OPP

3. Whether driver of offending vehicle at the time of accident was not holding a valid and effective driving license? OPR-3

Relief. O.P. Parties.”

8. The learned Tribunal after considering the evidence