Pension income constitutes a loss in dependency claims and must be compensated irrespective of family pension received by heirs.

JUDGMENT :

G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.

The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the award passed in MCOP.No.156 of 2018 on 15.10.2022 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Nagercoil. The appellants herein are the claimants before the Tribunal. The Appeal is filed for enhancement of compensation, primarily on the ground that the motor accident victim was drawing a pension of Rs.33,092/- per month and same is substantiated through Ex.P-14. Despite admitting it, the Tribunal erroneously declined to compensate the loss of income stating that the first claimant who is wife of the deceased getting family pension, hence, there is no loss of income.

2. The brief facts leading to the Appeal :

On 09.01.2017, while the deceased Thiruvambalam Pillai was riding his two wheeler bearing registration No:TN 74 AJ 2289 leading to his Village along the Nagercoil to Kanniyakumari Highways, he was hit behind by the passenger bus bearing registration No:TN 74 N 1280 owned by the first respondent Transport Corporation driven by the second respondent near Ashram Railway Overbridge. The rider of the vehicle Thiruvambalam Pillai was thrown down and sustained head injury. He was admitted in a private hospital at Nagercoil and later shifted to another hospital at Thiruvanthapuram, however succumbed to the injuries on 19.03.2017.

2.1. On the complaint given by the daughter-in-law of the victim, case was registered by the Susindram Police in Crime No.9 of 2017 initially under Sections 279 and 337 of IPC, but later altered to Section 304(A) IPC as against the driver of the bus for rash and negligence driving and causing death.

2.2. For loss of income, dependency, consortium, medical and other incidental expenses, the claimants who are the wife and 3 children (two sons and one daughter) of the accident victim had claimed a sum of Rs.38 lakhs as compensation. To substantiate the claim, the first claimant Muthulakshmi, W/o Thiruvambalam Pillai had graced the witness box as PW-1. To prove the negligence of the second respondent/bus driver one Mr.Vinayagam who witnessed the accident was examined as PW-2. Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-23 are the documents relied by the claimants. On the side of the respondents, no evidence adduced.

2.3. The tribunal after holding that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the bus driver, has applied the guideline framed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi’s case for awarding Rs.15,000/- for loss of personal belonging, Rs.15,000/- for funeral expenses and Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium for each of the dependants. That apart based on the bills, medical expenses and transport charges were added and has awarded totally a sum of Rs.12,72,402/- with 7.5% interest from 27.04.2018 till the date of realisation (excluding the period, if in case, the claim petition was dismissed for default and restored later).

3. The learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that the pension drawn by the victim is an income of the victim which is lost due to the accident. The Family pension paid to the first claimant is not a substitute for the pension drawn by the accident victim. In so far as loss of income, the accident victim was earning pension of Rs.33,092/- besides income of Rs.5000/- from his agricultural activities. After meeting out his personal expenses, he was contributing it to his family members who are the claimants. Hence compensation for the said loss with multiplier ought to have been awarded.

4. Relying on the Judgements of this Court the learned Counsel submitted that the tribunal failed to consider Ex.P-14 ( pension paper ). It erred in not awarding compen