Back
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
M.S.Liberhan and J.B.Garg JJ.
Sunita Rani
Versus
Hardev Singh
First Appeal First Order No. 782 of 1994,
Decided On : DECEMBER 6, 1994
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 - SEC. 140, 141 - COMPENSATION - CALCULATION - DEDUCTIONS - INSURANCE BENEFITS, SPECIAL PENSIONARY BENEFITS, EMPLOYMENT ON COMPASSIONATE GROUNDS - NOT DEDUCTIBLE.
Fact of the Case:
Deceased Suresh Kumar, aged 31, was employed as a Junior Engineer with a monthly income of Rs. 2383.00. His widow, Sunita Rani, received Rs. 100000.00 from the Group Insurance Scheme and Rs. 1,24,041.00 as special pensionary benefits in lieu of compensation under the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923. She was also employed as a clerk on compassionate grounds. The Accident Claims Tribunal assessed the dependency of the claimants at Rs. 19,200.00 per annum and awarded compensation of Rs. 2,30,400.00, deducting the amounts received from the Group Insurance Scheme, special pensionary benefits, and no-fault liability clause. The minor sons were granted Rs. 10,000.00 each with 12% interest.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the deductions made by the Tribunal were erroneous and contrary to the provisions of Sections 140 and 141 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. It emphasized that the compensation under Section 140 is to be assessed first, and any additional compensation under other provisions can only be claimed if it exceeds the compensation under Section 140. The court also held that the fact that the claimants started earning after the accident does not absolve the tortfeasor from the liability to pay compensation for the loss caused.
Issues: 1. Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was just and equitable. 2. Whether the deductions made by the Tribunal from the compensation were permissible under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was not just and equitable as it failed to take into account the full pecuniary loss suffered by the claimants due to the death of Suresh Kumar. 2. The court held that the deductions made by the Tribunal from the compensation were not permissible under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. It held that the insurance benefits, special pensionary benefits, and employment on compassionate grounds cannot be considered as substitutes for the compensation payable under the Act.
Final Decision: The court modified the award and assessed the compensation at Rs. 3,00000.00, to be deposited in the name of each minor in a Union Trust of India scheme and payable to them on attaining majority. The remaining amount of Rs.100000.00 was to be paid to the widow, Sunita Rani. The widow was entitled to receive interest on the amount deposited in favor of the minors during their minority for their upbringing.
1. The sole question raised in this appeal is with respect to the quantum of compensation payable to the widow and two minor children of less than 6 years of age of the deceased. Suresh Kumar (since deceased) aged 31 years was employed as Junior Engineer. He was drawing total emoluments of Rs. 2383.00 per month. Claimant Sunita Rani received Rs. 100000.00 from the Punjab State Electricity Board under the Group Insurance Scheme. Rs. 1,24,041.00 were received by her as special pensionary benefits in lieu of her right for compensation admissible under the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923. Sunita Rani was employed as clerk on compassionate ground. The Accident Claims Tribunal assessed the dependency of the claimants at Rs. 19,200.00 per annum and fixing a multiplier of 12 worked out the compensation payable to the claimants at Rs. 2,30,400.00-. The Tribunal deducted an amount of Rs. 1,24,041.00 paid as special pensionary benefits, and an amount of Rs. 100000/ - paid out of the Group Insurance Scheme and Rs. 15000.00- as per no fault liability clause and granted compensation of Rs. 10,000.00- each to the minor sons with 12% interest.
2. Sec. 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 , herein after referred to as the Act fixes the liability of the delinquent, owner and the Insurance Company jointly and severally to pay compensation in case of death resulting from the accident arising out of the use of motor vehicles. It further provides that the claim for compensation shall not be reduced or divided for the reason of any wrongful act, neglect or default of the deceased involved with respect to whose death the compensation is being sought by the claimants. Reference may be made to Sec. 140 of the Act. The legislature in its wisdom vide Sec. 141 of the Act provided specifically a right to claim compensation under Sec. 140 of the Act in respect of the death and in addition to right to claim compensation in respect thereof under any provisions of this Act or any other law for the time being in force. Section 141 runs as under :
"(1) The right to claim compensation under Sec. 140 in respect of death or permanent disablement of any person shall be in addition to any other right (hereafter in this section referred to as the right on the principle of fault) to claim compensation in respect thereof under any other provisions of this Act or of any other law for the time being in force.
(2) A claim for compensation under Sec. 140 in respect of death or permanent disablement of any person shall be disposed of as expeditiously as possible and where compensation is claimed in respect of such death or permanent disablement under Sec. 140 and also in pursuance of any right on the principle of fault, the claim for compensation under Sec. 140 shall be disposed of as aforesaid in the first place.
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), wherein respect of the death or permanent disablement of any person, the person liable to pay compensation in accordance with the right on the principle of fault, the person so liable shall pay the first-mentioned compensation and - (a) if he amount of the first mentioned compensation is less than the amount of the second-mentioned compensation, he shall be liable to pay (in addition to the first mentioned compensation) only so much of the second mentioned compensation as is equal to the amount by which it exceeds the first mentioned compensation; (b) if the amount of the first-mentioned compensation is equal two more than the amount of the second-mentioned compensation, he shall be liable to pay the second mentioned compensation."
3. Sec. 141 (3) envisages that where a person is liable to pay compensation in accordance with the right on the principle of fault, he shall first pay the compensation as assessed under Sec. 140 of the Act. It is only in the eventuality of the compensation assessed under Sec. 140 falling short of compensation assessed under any other Act that he shall be liable to pay the a
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
