Accident—Tort-Feasor—Share which tort-feasor may otherwise liable for, in the compensation amount, have to be deducted.
Precedents—If other High Court have taken a different view but own High Court has already considered those judgments and have laid down that the said judgments do not lay down the correct law then those judgments of other High Courts have to be ignored.

Mr. Anil Kshetarpal, J. (Oral) - Vide this judgment, appeal filed by the Insurance Company and cross-objections (XOBJC-228-CII-2017) filed by the claimant shall stand disposed of.

2. An interesting issue arises for consideration whether while assessing the compensation a tort-feasor can be granted benefit of his own wrong?

3. Late Smt. Veena Kumari wife of Tarsem Chand Sharma had died in a motor vehicular accident which took place on 15.08.2016. She was a pillion rider on a two-wheeler (scooter) driven by her son-respondent No.1 in the appeal. Learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has recorded a finding that respondent No.1, her son had caused the accident, although, this aspect has been disputed by learned counsel for the Insurance Company. However, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the aforesaid finding which is based upon appreciation of evidence available on the record and not established to be erroneous.

4. Scooter (two-wheeler) was owned by Tarsem Chand Sharma, her husband who is respondent No.3. In other words, the deceased was a pillion rider on a scooter driven by her son which was owned by her husband. The deceased-Veena Kumari was employed as a teacher drawing salary of Rs.74,522/-. Her husband had already retired and the son was studying at the time of accident. The claim petition was filed by the daughter who was unmarried at that time, although, aged about 28 years. Learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal deducted 50% of the salary towards personal expenses. Learned counsel for the cross-objector has submitted that the deduction of 50% is erroneous as he had left behind at least two dependents even if the husband is not taken to be dependent. Hence, he submitted that the deduction on account of personal expenses should be 1/3rd. He further points out that on account of future prospects, 15% addition is to be made as per the Constitution Bench judgment in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi, [2017(4) Law Herald (P&H) 2970 (SC) : 2017 LawHerald.Org 1565] : 2017(4) RCR (Civil), 1009.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Insurance Company has submitted that no compensation can be awarded to a tort-feasor. He submitted that respondents No.2 and 3 i.e. son and her husband were at fault and therefore, no amount can be awarded on that account. He relied upon the judgment passed by a Coordinate Bench in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Smt. Premwati and another [2017(2) Law Herald (P&H) 1542 : 2016 LawHerald.Org 2628] : 2017(2), PLR 167 wherein it has been held while distinguishing the views of different High Courts that a tort-feasor cannot benefit from his own wrong. Para 7 is extracted as under:-

“In my opinion, both these judgments present contrary views but none of them gives any reasons which may have prevailed with the learned Judge/s for having taken that particular view. However, in both the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the respondent No.1-claimant it has been categorically accepted that the tort-feasor can not benefit from his own wrong. Even otherwise this is an obvious principle. To my mind the logical extension of this principle can only be that in a case like the present the share which the tort-feasor may otherwise have in the compensation amount would have to be deducted. In this way a judicious balance can be drawn between the two extreme views that is one of the Jammu & Kashmir High Court holding that a petition at all would not be maintainable if one of the legal representatives is a tort-feasor and the views of the Kerala High Court and the Madras High Court wherein it has been held that even though the tortfeasor himself may not be entitled to any compensation yet his share would be handed over to the other legal representative.”

6. Learned counsel has further pointed out that the special