Compensation under the Motor Vehicle Act addresses pecuniary losses due to death, independent of pensions, emphasizing appropriate evidence and loss assessment.

JUDGEMENT

1. This appeal is directed against the award dated 23.08.2021 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jammu (for short 'the Tribunal') in file No. 299/Claim, titled, “Balbir Kour and others vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and others”, whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded the compensation for an amount of Rs. 11,52,500/- in favour of the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 alongwith interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of institution of this claim petition till realization of the award amount.

2. The award has been impugned by the appellant/Insurance Company on the ground that the deceased had retired from the Border Security Force as a Sub-Inspector and after his demise, the family pension received by respondent No. 1 was more than what the deceased used to draw and as such, there was no pecuniary loss to respondent No. 1. It is also stated that respondent Nos. 1 to 3 had miserably failed to place on record the proof of employment of the deceased with the GVR Infra Projects Co. Ltd. and as such, the income of the deceased allegedly earned as salary form M/S GVR Infra Projects Co. Ltd. could not have been considered while passing the award impugned.

3. Mr. Amrit Sarin, learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company has vehemently argued that the respondent No. 1 was getting more amount as pension than what was being paid to her by her deceased-husband and the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 could not prove the salary which the deceased was getting from GVR Infra Projects Co. Ltd., as such, the learned Tribunal has not rightly determined the compensation.

4. On the contrary, Mr. Ajay Vaid, learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 3 has vehemently argued that the compensation has been rightly determined by the learned Tribunal, as such, no interference is warranted.

5. Heard and perused the record.

6. A perusal of the record reveals that the respondent No. 1-wife of the deceased-Babu Singh, Gurdeep Singh-son of Babu Singh and Parmeet Kour daughter of Babu Singh filed a claim petition on account of death of Babu Singh in a vehicular accident on 29.05.2014. It was pleaded in the claim petition that the deceased after his retirement from Border Security Force, was serving with GVR Infra Projects Co. Ltd. and getting Rs. 20,000/- per month as salary. The appellant and respondent Nos. 4 and 5 were put to notice. The appellant/Insurance Company opposed the claim petition on the ground that the vehicle was being driven in contravention of the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy, whereas respondent Nos. 4 and 5 filed their response thereby stating that the vehicle was insured with the appellant and exaggerated claim have been made by respondent Nos. 1 to 3.

7. After framing the issues, the learned Tribunal directed the parties to lead evidence. The respondent Nos. 1 to 3 besides examining respondent No.2, have examined PWs Manjeet Singh and Gurdeep Singh in support of their claim, whereas the appellant did not examine any witness in rebuttal to the evidence led by the respondents 1 to 3.

8. The learned Tribunal after taking into consideration the statement of PW Manjeet Singh, has awarded an amount of Rs. 10,02,500/- to the respondent Nos.1 to 3 on account of loss of dependency, though intended award to the respondent No. 1 only. Further, a sum of Rs. 15,000/- each on account of 'Funeral Expenses' & 'Loss of Estate' and Rs. 40,000/- each on account of 'Loss of Consortium' have been granted to the respondent Nos. 1 to 3.

9. It is contended by the appellant/Insurance Company that the learned Tribunal was not right in its approach in granting