IMPORTANT POINT
Compensation for death in motor vehicle accidents under the Motor Vehicles Act cannot be reduced by pension or insurance benefits, as these are not directly linked to the accident, and the principle of 'just compensation' must be upheld.

JUDGMENT :

(Rajnesh Oswal, J.) :

1. The two separate appeals bearing Nos. 433/2011 and 411/2011 have been preferred by the appellant- Insurance Company against the judgment and award dated 21.04.2011 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kathua (hereinafter to be referred as the Tribunal) by virtue of which two claim petitions one bearing file No. 11/CP, titled, 'Sehdev Singh & Ors. v. Jasbir Singh & Ors.' filed by the parents as well as siblings of the deceased and the other bearing file No. 5/CP, titled, Reena Jasrotia v. Jasbir Singh and Ors. filed by the widow of the deceased, have been decided and the appellant has been directed to pay compensation of Rs. 13,50,000/- along with interest of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization to the respondents/claimants, namely, Reena Jasrotia (widow), Sehdev Singh (father) and Smt. Sudershna Devi (mother) in three equal shares.

2. Simultaneously, the claimant-Reena Jasrotia (widow) has also filed an appeal bearing MA No. 436/2011 against the aforesaid award for proper apportionment of the compensation as she claims to be entitled to 2/3rd of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

3. In both the appeals, the appellant-Insurance Company has impugned the award on the ground of quantum of compensation and it has been submitted that the respondent-Sehdev Singh is a retired Government servant drawing pension and respondent-Smt. Sudershna Devi is his wife and dependent upon him and as such, they are not entitled for compensation and further that the respondent-Reena Jasrotia being the widow of the deceased would be getting pension equivalent to the salary of the deceased for the next seven years from the death of the deceased but the learned Tribunal has not considered this aspect of the case.

4. Mr. Rupinder Singh, learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company has vehemently argued that the father of the deceased was never dependent as he was a retired Government servant getting pension and further the widow of the deceased would be getting the pension equivalent to the salary of the deceased for next seven years but the learned Tribunal has not considered the said fact. He further submitted that the quantum of compensation has not been correctly assessed.

5. Per contra, Mr. Anil Gupta, learned counsel for the claimant/respondent- widow of the deceased has not raised the dispute with regard to the quantum of compensation but he submitted that the respondent-Reena Jasrotia has become widow in a young age of 22 years and further that the father of the deceased is a retired Government servant and the mother of the deceased is also dependent upon him, as such, the two-third of the awarded amount be granted to the claimant-widow of the deceased.

6. Heard and perused the record.

7. Facts necessary for disposal of the present appeal are that the claim petition was filed by the widow of the deceased-Davinder Singh for grant of compensation on account of death of her husband in a road accident at Kali Bari Chowk near NHW on 14.12.2005. The parents along with the sister and brother of the deceased filed another claim petition for grant of claim and both these claim petitions were clubbed and the learned Tribunal framed the following issues.

“1. Whether the accident took place on 10.12.2005 at Kali Bari Chowk NHW Kathua due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle bearing Registration No. PW 12 D 9477 by respondent No. 1 as a result of which the deceased Devinder Singh sustained fatal injuries? OPP

2. In case Issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative to how much compensation the petitioners are entitled to? OPP

3. Whether the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving license at the time of accident and it was being plied in contravention of the RC, RP and FC and as such, the insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation? OPR-3

4. Relief .”

8. The claimants examined PW Aman Sharma, PW Swarn Singh, PW Ree